 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
 |
|
||
Historical regular seminars
ComSci Fellows meet on a weekly basis for special programs and lectures intended to involve them in discussions on current science, technology, and technology policy issues. At least 26 half-day seminars are held throughout the duration of the fellowship year with speakers invited from government agencies, the private sector, and academia. In lieu of a speaker, regular seminars may take the form of a visit to scientific and research facilities or industries in the Washington Metropolitan Area. ComSci Fellows are encouraged to provide their input regarding the selection of seminar topics, speakers, and visits for these weekly sessions.
Class of 2004-2005
Class of 2003-2004
Class of 2002-2003
Class of 2001-2002
Class of 2000-2001
Class of 1999-2000
Class of 1998-1999
Class of 1997-1998
Gary Smith
IP Consultant
(September 29, 2004)Topic: International Aspects of Intellectual Property
The ComSci Program’s regular seminars began on September 29th with an engaging presentation and discussion with Mr. Gary Smith, an intellectual property (IP) consultant. Mr. Smith’s IP projects include work for the Turkish Patent Institute and the Egyptian Patent Office. Until 2002, Mr. Smith was Director of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) at the World Intellectual Property Organization; he also served for 25 years at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), culminating with a position as Director of the PCT International Division. Accordingly, Mr. Smith gave a wide-ranging talk beginning with the basics of intellectual property and moving on to cover the intricacies of the international system for protection of IP rights. The ComSci Fellows were also interested to learn that Mr. Smith had been a ComSci Fellow earlier in his career, and that his assignment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy had contributed to his career in international technology issues.
In introducing the ComSci Fellows to the basics of intellectual property, Mr. Smith noted that generally speaking, there are three types of property – real property (land), personal property, and intangible property (a type of personal property). All have in common that the owner of property has the right to exclude others from its use. Intellectual property is a form of intangible property, and thus cannot be physically protected the way one might protect land or personal property. Rather, intellectual property addresses protection of different types of innovations, and is designed to provide incentives for continuing technological, economic, and artistic advances. One rationale for a legal system for the protection of intellectual property is to promote its disclosure and public availability. For example, without patent protection, it is likely that many inventions would not be made public, and would instead be kept as trade secrets.
Mr. Smith explained that intellectual property is generally divided into two broad categories – industrial property, including patents, trademarks, and industrial designs; and copyright. In the United States, the Constitution expressly calls for the protection of intellectual property in the form of patents and copyrights: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . .” U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 8. Accordingly, the Patent Act provides for the protection of inventions or discoveries, essentially including new and useful processes, machines, products, and compositions of matter. Industrial designs, which are ornamental in nature, are also protected pursuant to the Patent Act. The Copyright Act calls for protection of “original works of authorship,” including literary works, musical works, dramatic works, choreographic works, pictorial and sculptural works, motion pictures, sound recordings, and architectural works. As the Constitution specifies, both patent and copyright protection are for limited times – generally, 20 years for patents, and the life of the author plus 70 years for copyrights. The Lanham Act provides for protection of trademarks, which include symbols, labels, packages, names, words, and phrases that distinguish goods or services. Trademark protection is available indefinitely.
In the United States, the United States Patent and Trademark Office administers patent and trademark protection. The U.S. Copyright Office, a unit of the Library of Congress, administers copyright protection. However, national protection of intellectual property is insufficient, because once it is disclosed it is easily transferred and exploited. In regard to patents, the need for international protection became clear in 1873, when foreign inventors who were concerned that their ideas would be stolen and commercialized refused to provide exhibits for an International Exhibition of Inventions in Vienna.
International protection of inventions, trademarks, and industrial designs began with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which entered into force in 1884 with 14 member States. In 1886, international protection of copyright began, with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Both the Paris and Berne Conventions set up small international offices to administer the functions of the treaties. Over the years, the number of treaties and the size of the offices grew, eventually becoming the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – an organization that administers 23 treaties on behalf of 182 member nations. WIPO seeks to harmonize national intellectual property legislation and procedures, provide services for international applications for industrial property rights, exchange intellectual property information, provide legal and technical assistance to developing and other countries, facilitate the resolution of private intellectual property disputes, and marshal information technology as a tool for storing, accessing, and using valuable intellectual property information.The most successful and widely used of the treaties administered by WIPO is the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT); as mentioned above, Mr. Smith was the Director for Administration of the PCT at WIPO, and also at the USPTO. The PCT provides for a single international patent application, which has legal effect in all countries, which are bound by the treaty and designated by the applicant. By filing a PCT application, an inventor receives valuable information about the potential patentability of his invention (through the international search report and the optional international preliminary examination report) and has more time than under the traditional patent system to decide in which of the designated countries to continue with the application. Thus, the PCT system consolidates and streamlines patenting procedures and reduces costs, providing applicants with a solid basis for important decision-making. The PCT system now has 125 member nations and had 110,065 international applications in 2003. Because these applications covered more than one country, this total represents the equivalent of about 8.5 million national patent applications.
In closing, Mr. Smith emphasized that WIPO strives to ensure that intellectual property protection benefits all nations. Accordingly, WIPO has developed a forum to explore intellectual property issues arising from traditional knowledge and folklore as well as the conservation, preservation, management, sustainable utilization and benefit-sharing of genetic resources. In addition, WIPO is giving special attention to issues facing least-developed countries as they turn to meeting their intellectual property obligations as members of the World Trade Organization.
Visit to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce
(Gaithersburg, Maryland)
(October 6, 2004)Technology-based innovation remains one of the Nation’s most important competitive advantages. Today, more than at any other time in history, technological innovation and progress depend on the unique skills and capabilities that abound at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST has a long and distinguished history of providing the necessary standards, measurements, and measurement science and technology for the United States and its industries. Founded in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Its mission is to develop and promote measurement, standards, and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life for United States’ citizens. NIST implements its mission within its laboratories, located within the Gaithersburg, Maryland and Boulder, Colorado campuses, and three extramural programs; the Baldrige National Quality Program, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the Advanced Technology Program.
The technology, measurements, and standards that are the essence of the work done by NIST’s laboratories help United States’ industry to invent and manufacture superior products and to provide services reliably. NIST also promotes United States’ access to global markets and a fair marketplace for consumers and businesses. The NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership strengthens the competitiveness of thousands of America’s small and mid-sized manufacturers – not just preserving but expanding jobs – with a broad array of technical and business support services ranging from plant modernization and employee training to business practices and information technology. NIST’s Baldrige National Quality Program works closely with manufacturers, service companies, and educational, health care, and non-profit organizations to develop and disseminate world-class “best practices” for their management and operation – that result in higher quality products and services. The NIST Advanced Technology Program (ATP), through a competitive research and development cost-sharing program, fosters the development of emerging technologies that enable revolutionary new products, industrial processes, and services for the world’s markets and helps lay the foundations for the new industries of the 21st Century.
Upon the ComSci Fellows’ arrival, Mr. Mat Heyman, NIST Chief of Staff, gave a tour of the exhibits stationed throughout the main lobby of the Administration Building in Gaithersburg. Walking by the displays, Mr. Heyman explained how United States’ industries rely on NIST for standard reference materials and metrology. “NIST is in your house,” Mr. Heyman informed the ComSci Fellows as they stared at a refrigerator full of bread, lettuce, milk and other food products. He went on to explain, “NIST does not work on regulating standards but works closely with regulatory agencies to ensure that they are all working from the same base.” It is through the work performed at NIST that measures for nutritional values of food and its shelf life have been derived.
United States’ industry is NIST’s customer. NIST is the keeper of the standard reference materials and makes them available for industry to measure against in assuring the quality of their product.
Engineers in the NIST labs develop performance criteria and standards for many of the products that affect our daily lives. They define codes and standards to increase the structural integrity of our buildings and their performance when acted upon by forces such as hurricanes or earthquakes. NIST is also in your doctor’s office. NIST provides the reference materials for ensuring the quality and accuracy of such things as blood tests, radiation measurements for medical treatments, and composite materials that make up dental fillings. In the NIST Crime Laboratory, performance standards are determined for bullet resistant armor, fingerprint systems and biometrics. But don’t forget, NIST is very well-known for its time keeping expertise. NIST maintains the atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado that helps our national power grid run smoothly as well as the millions of electronic transactions that occur each day both nationally and internationally.
To compete in what is now a global economy, the United States depends critically on its ability to conduct innovative research and then translate that research into new innovative products with a high potential to fuel economic growth. The mission of the Advanced Technology program is to accelerate development of innovative, high-risk technologies that enable multiple end use applications that improve the daily lives of Americans. Mr. Marc Stanley, Director of the ATP, talked to the ComSci Fellows about the diversity of technologies that were co-funded by NIST ATP and private industry, ranging from technologies to improve the fitting of auto parts for a higher quality product with a competitive edge to DNA chips. Within the ATP, Industry leads the way, identifying those technology areas where they believe government investment can make the biggest impact. Since 1990, ATP has co-funded 768 projects involving United States, for-profit companies, universities, national laboratories and non-profit organizations.
It was then time to leave the Administration Building and head for the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), one of the four large neutron scattering facilities in the United States. Neutrons are powerful probes of the structure and dynamics of materials. They reveal properties not available to other probes. They can behave like microscopic magnets, can diffract like waves, or set particles into motion as they recoil from them. These unique properties make neutrons particularly well-suited to investigate all forms of magnetic materials such as those used in computer memory storage and retrieval. Atomic motion especially that of hydrogen can be measured and monitored, like that of water during the setting of cement. Residual stresses such as those inside stamped steel automobile parts can be mapped. Neutron-based research covers a broad spectrum of disciplines, including engineering, biology, materials science, polymers, chemistry, and physics. The NCNR supports important NIST research needs, but is also operated as a major national user facility with merit-based access made available to the entire United States’ technological community. Each year, over 1,700 research participants from all areas of the country, from industry, academia, and government, use the facility for measurements.
A visit to the Ionizing Radiation Division within the NIST Physics Laboratory was next on the agenda. Ms. Lisa Karam, Acting Division Chief, explained to the ComSci Fellows the importance of the work performed in this lab to quality assurance of nuclear pharmaceuticals. This Division provides national standards for radionuclides used in 13 million diagnostic procedures and 200,000 therapeutic nuclear medicine procedures annually in the United States. Mr. Stephen Seltzer, Group Leader of the Radiation Interactions and Dosimetry Group, showed the ComSci Fellows the radioactive seeds used in radiation therapies to treat prostate cancer and to prevent restenosis following balloon angioplasty. He explained how the work of his division is critical to the calibration of these seeds for accurate dosage. Work within the Ionizing Radiation Division extends into other areas beyond medicine. Scientists are exploring applications in worker protection, environmental protection, and even national defense. For example, after the 2001 anthrax incident in the United States, research was performed in this NIST laboratory to determine accurate doses of radiation required to kill anthrax spurs in mail. It is clear that the Ionizing Radiation Division provides national leadership in promoting accurate, meaningful, and compatible measurements of ionizing radiations and radioactivity for applications that improve everyone’s quality of life.
The next stop brought the ComSci Fellows to NIST North, a part of the NIST Gaithersburg campus where much of the Information Technology Lab resides, including the Advanced Network Technologies Division where the motto is “Provide the networking industry with the best in test and measurement technology." This Division is committed to improving the quality of networking specifications and standards and to expedite the commercial availability of new, high-quality networking products. In this vein, the High Speed Network Technologies Group has delivered. Ms. Nada Golmie, Group Leader, with several of her colleagues demonstrated their Generated Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)/Lightwave Agile Switching Simulator (GLASS) product. GMPLS/GLASS was developed to address failure and recovery issues within networks that are fully connected meshes and that typically comprise our Nation’s communications infrastructure. With this tool, simulations of complex networks can be run to perform sensitivity analyses and identify weaknesses within the infrastructure, eliminating the need for testing on actual networks and reducing costs.
The ability to manipulate molecules and atoms, and see them one-by-one has advanced tremendously over the past ten years. Now, because of the research performed within the NIST Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory’s (MEL) Nanoscale Metrology Group, one can see and build things at the atomic scale. Dr. Thomas LeBrun, a physicist within MEL’s Precision Engineering Division, explained how nanomaterials can be used to build nano-systems through the process of grabbing and manipulating them with lasers that act as tweezers. With this technique, scientists can manipulate components inside a cell without damaging them or the cell wall. Dr. LeBrun then demonstrated the laser tweezers by “picking up” a nanowire and moving it across a microfluidic plate. This breakthrough will have a significant impact on the advancement of the United States’ microelectronic manufacturing industries.
The last stop of the day was certainly no less intriguing than all of the previous visits of the day. The Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at NIST performs studies on building materials, computer-integrated construction practices, fire science and fire safety engineering, and structural, mechanical, and environmental engineering. It is to NIST and this lab that the Nation turned to lead a technical investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. Dr. Kevin McGrattan, a Mathematician within the Fire Research Division of BFRL contributed to this investigation by trying to answer questions like “Why did the WTC fire not look much like other fires in high-rise buildings?” To answer this and other fire-related questions, Dr. McGrattan utilized visual images from outside of the World Trade Center buildings as input into his simulation tool. The simulation uses numerical models that are applied to the numerous factors associated with fires in high-rise buildings such as combustion, smoke movement, and the interchange of hot and cool gases. Dr. McGrattan was able to validate his simulation results by using the BFRL test chambers where actual fires are created in a controlled environment instrumented with a number of sensors for data collection. As a result of this study and other on-going innovative research within BFRL, the Nation will benefit through improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained and used.
Gregory Tassey
Senior Economist
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
U.S. Department of Commerce
(October 14, 2004)Topic: Research and Development Investment Trends in Manufacturing and the Role of Government
Dr. Gregory Tassey gave a compelling presentation about government science and technology policy and the analytical tools with which to manage policy. Over the past 15 years or so, many Federal agencies and especially NIST, have come under increasing political pressure to justify their technical programs’ results.Dr. Tassey began by stating that technical knowledge shouldn’t necessarily be an end in itself. Rather, investment in basic and applied research and development (R&D) is an input that leads to an output of new technologies, which leads in turn to economic growth. Greater economic growth is an outcome that can be used to address a variety of social welfare issues, broadly defined, including a higher standard of living, better health care, greater national security, and so forth.
He also made the distinction between public and private goods. Basic science falls into the former category because it is widely used by many people and so much of it is done by the Government. Applied research is a pure private good because it benefits only certain segments of the population and so is typically conducted by private industry. Research that is not so clearly basic or applied is grounds for debate about whether Government or industry should be the primary sponsor. In response to a question about the optimal mix of Government-private sector investment, Dr. Tassey responded that this needs to be addressed at the microeconomic level.
In advocating politically for their agencies’ science and technology (S&T) programs, it is critical for analysts to identify specific underinvestment in a particular area and to quantify this gap. This should then lead to strategic planning.
Historically, our intensity of R&D investment hasn’t changed significantly since the Sputnik era. Geographically within the United States, a small number of states account for the vast majority of domestic technological innovation.
In terms of being competitive internationally, “off-shoring” of jobs has existed for centuries and is not necessarily an economic problem. However, the plummeting United States’ trade balance since the early 1990s indicates that the rest of the world has become more competitive. He dismissed the rationale for trade protectionism that it gives domestic industries “more time to catch up” as being false in that such industries just become stale and inefficient.
Next generation (disruptive) technologies account for a very significant share of industrial profits, although most technological innovations tend to be incremental.
Dr. Tassey also stressed the importance of the government helping to build appropriate industrial bases for long-term economic development. Thus, for example, perhaps the Government should not worry so much about developing new, more efficient weapons systems per se but should be concerned with creating the infrastructure and incentives for a strong defense industrial base that can respond agilely to the Pentagon’s needs. Somewhat similarly, the goal of a Small Business Innovation Research program should be to foster an industrial base of small companies that can be more innovative, nimble, and fill niche markets more efficiently than large corporations.
Dr. Tassey does a superb job of quantifiably documenting the value of his agency’s S&T contributions, as well as similar issues on a macroeconomic level. His economic analyses and understanding of how politics, economics, and science and technology converge are excellent models for other agencies. He also did a great job of communicating economic concepts in layperson’s language. It is only a pity that his work is virtually unique in the Government.
Dr. Tassey’s website is at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget.htm.
Thomas A. Weber
Director, Division of Materials Research
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
National Science Foundation
(October 20, 2004)Topic: Materials Research at the National Science Foundation
The focus of Dr. Thomas Weber’s presentation was to provide a broad overview of the materials research at the National Science Foundation (NSF). In his opening remarks, Dr. Weber highlighted NSF’s vision, mission, and strategic goals. NSF was established through an Act of Congress in 1950. NSF’s vision is to enable the Nation’s future through discovery, learning, and innovation. NSF’s mission is to promote scientific progress, advance national prosperity, and secure national defense. NSF’s strategic goals highlight the role of Ideas, People, and Tools.
Dr. Weber mentioned that NSF’s focus is on academic institutions promoting research and education in all areas of science and engineering except medicine and space. The Assistant Director for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) manages the Division of Materials Research and reports to the Director and Deputy Director of NSF who in turn report to the National Science Board. In the fiscal Year 2004, a total of 24,860 people were involved in MPS activities.
NSF invests in the best ideas from the most capable people, as determined by competitive merit review, which judges each proposal against intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposed activity. NSF’s support for materials ranges from fundamental phenomena to functional materials, devices, and systems. Some of the areas of research include synthesis, processing, properties, theory and modeling, characterization, design, and manufacturing. The “materials community” includes materials scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, educators and more.
Division of Materials Research (DMR) funds diverse programs in the areas of metals, ceramics, electronic materials, condensed matter physics, etc. The crosscutting programs include materials theory, materials centers, user facilities, and instrumentation, and office of special programs. The Distributed Mechanisms include focused research groups, workshops, conferences, NSF-wide programs such as CAREER, EPSCoR. DMR’s support of materials in Fiscal Year 2003 was approximately $250 million. A total of 5,814 people were supported by DMR’s research grants in Fiscal Year 2003.
Some of DMR’s research facilities include Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering, Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Synchrotron Research Center, and National Nanofabrication User Facility. The Basic Science Cluster includes Condensed Matter Physics, Polymers, and Solid-State Chemistry. Some examples of research work are Tunneling Spectroscopy of Electron-in-a-Box Energy Levels in Metal Particles, Polymers for Self-Assembled Biomaterials, Dynamics of Macromolecules, and Construction of Metal-Molecule-Metal Bridge.
Advanced Materials and Processing Cluster involves metals, ceramics, and electronic materials. Some examples of current research are in situ processing of superconducting MgB2-Metal Composites, Domain Specific Surface Reactivity of Ferroelectric Surfaces, and Growing Virtually Defect-free Germanium on Silicon.
Materials Research and Technology Enabling Cluster involves Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, Materials Theory, National Facilities, Instrumentation for Materials Research, and Office of Special Programs. Some examples of current research are self-assembling devices, computational materials design based on novel spectral density functional, The Thompson Problem and Spherical Crystallography.
NSF’s strategic goals involve People (a diverse, internationally competitive and globally-engaged workforce), Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) and Teachers (RET), and Partnerships for Research and Education in Materials. In the summer of 2003, DMR supported 73 REU sites and 21 RET sites in which more than 1,000 undergraduates and 100 pre-college teachers participated. DMR also has Partnerships for Research and Education in Materials (PREM) program, which awards up to $750 thousand a year for five years to minority institutions.
One other strategic goal is Tools (accessible, state-of-the-art information bases and shared tools). DMR supports materials instrumentation and instrument development efforts through research awards, grants to centers, funding instrumentation programs and major instrumentation programs.
NSF is actively involved in international activities and supports are provided through regular awards and co-sponsorship of several international workshops. One major initiative that is currently underway is to develop a Materials World Net as a resource for research and education. Examples of international cooperation are NSF-EC Workshops, International Materials Institutes, United States-Africa Interactions, Implementation meetings-Asia-Pacific region and Africa, Planning activities-India, Russia, and Middle East. Some data from current international materials collaboration projects are: 247 collaborative proposals, 51 multi-year awards, and $18.4 million total award money. Some other International Programs of Interest are: MPS Distinguished International Postdoctoral Research Fellowships, Pan American Advanced Studies Institutes, International Research Fellowship Program, Japan Postdoctoral Fellowships, etc.
NSF is actively engaged with the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). NSF’s funding toward Fiscal Year 2003 was $221 million, which includes efforts in areas such as biological sciences, engineering, mathematical and physical sciences etc. Some of the Fiscal Year 2005 program solicitations are in Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE), Nanotechnology Science and Engineering Education (NSEE). Characteristics of NSF Centers are: Interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary research groups, educational component, industrial outreach, and shared instrumentation. There are several NSE Centers such as Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Northwestern etc. NSF has several Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers located throughout the country (http://www.mrsec.org).
NSF’s nanoscale efforts also include Educational and Societal Outreach. NSF is educating students and society to technologically literate in nanotechnology and encouraging medical professionals to avail themselves of the latest advances in nanotechnology. NSF is aware of the societal and educational implications of science and technology advances and is educating community about the health implications of nanotechnology.
Finally, Dr. Weber spent some time in educating the ComSci Fellows about scientific ethics. He drew on an example involving a scientist at Bell Labs who had severely violated scientific ethics.
Overall, this was a very productive seminar. The ComSci Fellows learned a great deal about NSF, its initiatives in materials research, and NSF’s focus on nanotechnology.
Websites of interest include: http://www.nsf.gov and http://www.nano.gov.
Anne Kelly
CEO/Executive Director
Federal Consulting Group
A Franchise of the U.S. Department of the Treasury
(October 27, 2004)Topic: Changes, Challenges, and Opportunities for Future Leaders.
Ms. Anne Kelly directs a team of senior executives who provide management-consulting services to senior leaders throughout the Federal Government. She performs this function from a broad perspective of the Federal Government obtained through a variety of senior positions held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the U.S. Department of Commerce. She knows the inner workings of the Federal Government well and is able to work within the system to change and improve it. She is a student of women’s issues in the Federal Government and has been an activist in promoting the role of women in the Federal Government.
Ms. Kelly presented herself as the hands-on coach that her position requires her to be. She used powerful metaphors and figures of speech and loaded the ComSci Fellows with many powerful quotes, which should help the ComSci Fellows in their own respective quests to make a difference. Some of these are represented here.
For example, in her presentation she made a compelling case for perpetual change within the Federal Government (and outside of it for that matter). She started from the proposition that has seen more changes in society in the last 30 years than in all of human civilization before then. To make this exponential development palpable, she used an effective model. Assume human civilization, as we know it started 5,000 years ago with the earliest writings and the invention of the wheel, and project these 5,000 years onto a period of 24 hours. In so doing it can be seen that the first Olympics appear on our time scale about 13 hours ago. Ten hours ago, paper was invented and three hours ago, we learned how to print on it (i.e., Gutenberg). The Star Spangled Banner was written (and distributed, printed on paper) one hour ago. The Civil War was 45 minutes ago, the moon landing 14 minutes. The Internet started three minutes ago, and September 11, 2001 happened less than a minute ago. A society that changes at this rate needs a government that can keep pace with it if it is to lead. In other words it has to change very rapidly, or else it will become obsolete.
Accepting that change is necessary, Ms. Kelly touched upon the principles and tools that leaders should have at their fingertips to lead change. These ranged from the practical: the necessity to communicate and convince (particularly through listening), to the political: “the grapevine is a powerful tool to effectuate change.” Change, should be seen as a form of “creative destruction,” or as an engineer would have it: “planned obsolescence,” or the politician: “the burning platform.” Some of these tools were presented within the context of a series of short stories and case studies, which are paraphrased below.
-- Know the Problem: Government can be seen as a machine that has as its function the automation of [bad] processes. As soon as this is detected, one has to act, but not randomly, or by another process such as change for the sake of change. Instead follow a course of change followed by evaluation and adjustment. Change is most productive as an evolutionary process.
-- Create Enthusiasm: In order to get anything done, one has to energize the troops and get the top leaders committed, by showing what is in it for them. Allow the boss to take credit for your success. Since every leader is in fact some sort of a middle manager (“everyone has a boss”), modern leaders should create a culture of “followership.” In other words, it makes sense to teach people how to manage up. This means that if you are the boss, lead by example (i.e., be led).
-- Document your work: According to Ms. Kelly this is the single most effective use of e-mail, a tool with which so many people do otherwise more damage than good. It is not a good communication tool for change because it fosters mistrust.
-- Drive the change: Start the process – it makes no sense to wait until the next boss arrives. The Department Secretary will go, regardless of who gets elected (note that this remark was made less than one week before the 2004 presidential elections, in which President George W. Bush was to win a second term).
-- Baldrige Process: Ms. Kelly is an active examiner for the Baldrige Quality Award, which places the customer in the driver’s seat. The Baldrige criteria states that after the customer, the business systems are the most critical and with that the leadership, and the employees.
-- Patent Office: The customer used to be – the law and law firms. After careful analysis it turned out that this was ripe for a paradigm shift. The Patent Office now has a new customer image: inventors. This may sound trivial but according to Ms. Kelly, this took a lot of work to make happen.
-- Department of Homeland Security: In the South Texas port of entry that goes by the name of Port Isabel, at any given time 800 people are detained for some sort of immigration law violation. Port Isabel had the reputation of being the worst camp for immigration detainees. Top leadership was aware of the problem, but has no idea what the solution was. Finally, the employees were asked what should be done about this. A two and a half-day session was organized in which consensus was reached on those things that were wrong in the detainee center. There was also consensus that the condition of the aliens should be improved. It turned out that the alien was a compelling customer.
An important conclusion taken away from this presentation was that the ability to be trusted is the single most important attribute a leader can have. Being trusted is not something anyone can achieve overnight. Ms. Kelly gave the ComSci Fellows some issues to take away and think about. For example:
-- Recognize the current ever-changing workforce. Accept the existence of generation conflicts and enjoy its diversity.
-- Allow 360-degree assessment [of yourself]. The more painful you think it is going to be, the more necessary it is. It is a great trust builder.
-- Lead by example: if you want continuous learning, be a continuous learner.
Kenneth Alibek
Executive Director
The National Center for Biodefense
George Mason University
(November 3, 2004)Topic: Bioterrorism
Dr. Kenneth Alibek is the Executive Director Education and Science for George Mason University’s National Center for Biodefense and is a Distinguished Professor at George Mason University. He also holds the positions of President and Chief Scientist of Advanced Biosystems. Dr. Alibek is responsible for establishing collaborations with scientific and other organizations as well as overseeing research for the National Center for Biodefense. As a Distinguished Professor of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Dr. Alibek conducts research and teaches in the areas of microbiology, immunology, and biotechnology. At Advanced Biosystems, he leads medical and scientific research programs dedicated to developing new forms of medical protection against biological weapons and other infectious diseases.
Dr. Alibek was born in Kazakhstan prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union and defected to the United States in 1992. He was educated in the Soviet Union and received multiple degrees in his field of expertise, including Biological Sciences (Biotechnology), Moscow, Russia, 1990; Ph.D., Microbiology, Moscow, Russia, 1984; and MD (specializing in Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology), Tomsk, Russia, 1975. Dr. Alibek served as First Deputy Chief of the civilian branch of the Soviet Union’s offensive biological weapons program and has more than 20 years of experience in the development, management and supervision of high containment (BL-4) pathogen laboratories. He has extensive knowledge of biotechnology, including bioprocessing, biological weapons threat analysis; antibacterial and antiviral drug development; development of regimens for urgent prophylaxis and treatment of the diseases caused by biological weapons; and mass casualty handling. He is a former Soviet Army Colonel.
Since defecting to the United States, Dr. Alibek has subsequently served as a consultant to numerous United States’ government agencies in the areas of industrial technology, medical microbiology, biological weapons defense, and biological weapons nonproliferation. He has worked with the National Institutes of Health and testified extensively before the U.S. Congress on nonproliferation of biological weapons in trying to raise the knowledge base and alertness of this important threat to our county. Dr. Alibek has published articles in a number of classified journals on the development in the field of biological weapons, biological weapons threat, and on medical aspects of biodefense.
Dr. Alibek began his presentation by describing biological weapons – which are weapons that are based on pathogenic microorganisms or toxic substances of biological origin, formulated in such a way that they are capable of disabling or/and killing people and livestock, as well as munitions and delivery systems for deployment. He described the classes of weapons: (1) Viral, (2) Rickettsial, (3) Fungal, (4) Toxin, and (5) Bio-regulators (mediators of various systems). He then described the methods of transporting the weapon to an adversary: (1) Vector (i.e., mosquito), (2) contamination of food or water sources, or (3) aerosols (described as the most effective method). Dr. Alibek further described the three types of categories of weapons being developed by scientists and engineers in multiple countries. The first category is “Lethal” weapons like anthrax, plagues, small pox, Ebola virus, or yellow fever. The second category is “Lethal/Incapacitating,” like West Nile encephalitis or SARS corona virus infection. The last category is “Incapacitating”, like influenza or monkey pox.
After describing the types and purposes for using biological weapons, Dr. Alibek described the manufacturing capabilities and depot levels in the former Soviet Union that still exists in parts of Russia and Kazakhstan: 200 tons of Anthrax stockpiled in the Sverdlovsk facility, 20 tons of Plague stockpiled in Kirov facility, and 20 tons of Smallpox stockpiled in the Zagorsk facility. All facilities can manufacture similar levels annually to replenish stockpiles if used or obsolete due to shelf life issues, or produce stockpiles of other agents listed above.
Dr. Alibek furthered the discussion by describing the research of modifying natural strains of agents into more effective weapons to further shelf-life like bulk dry storage, by introducing binders to protect the spores when dispensed from munitions and genetically altering strains to be more resistant to antibiotic drug therapies. He also discussed the methods for deploying such weapons, air-delivered cluster bombs, spray tanks, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and special operatives.
Due to Dr. Alibek’s extensive educational background and interesting life experiences, the ComSci Fellows felt they were extremely privileged and fortunate to hear Dr. Alibek speak on such a relevant and important subject of bioweapons and bioterrorism. Dr. Alibek stated there is evidence that most countries conduct research and may also produce biological weapons including North Korea, France, United Kingdom, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Germany, and possibly Brazil, to name a few, but he stated most countries have some sort of biological weapon research program, if not just to understand the threat and countermeasure to such a threat.
As for the Soviet Union’s policy, Dr. Alibek stated the Soviet Union does not stockpile anti-agents or cures to protect their own population, because they considered using bioweapons analogous to using other weapons of mass destruction, under the vale of the policy of “assurance of mutual destruction.” In other words, the weapons would only be used as a last resort, where destruction of the entire modern world civilization, similar to a nuclear holocaust, was the known result. Now that the iron curtain has fallen and the Soviet Union no longer exists, there is the pressing issue or concern that such dreadful weapons or the knowledge to develop weapons could be acquired by terrorist supported countries or non-state actors and the threat of the use of such type of weapons have increased.
Visit to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(November 16-18, 2004)The ComSci Fellows’ three-day trip to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania began by stopping first at Penn Power’s Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, a coal-fired power plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Penn Power is part of FirstEnergy Corporation. The Bruce Mansfield Power Plant was built in 1976 and was the first utility plant built with a scrubber system to remove sulfur dioxide from its emissions. The scrubber system works by spraying a liquid lime substance into the flue gas, which creates calcium sulfite, a lime-based by-product.
Ms. Amanda Leech, and Mr. John Hindman, Communications and Outreach Manager, both from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) met the ComSci Fellows outside the Plant’s facilities. Ms. Leech introduced the group to Mr. James “Jim” Mooney, a bulk materials specialist, with Bruce Mansfield. On the drive up to the first stop of the tour of the facilities, Mr. Mooney pointed out various points of interest on the grounds of the facility, such as where the coal is stored, the stacks and the cooling towers. He told the ComSci Fellows that the plant burns seven million tons of coal a year. The bulk of the coal comes from Pennsylvania mines by barge and by rail. The facility is state-of-the-art from an environmental perspective.
Upon arrival at the Plant, the ComSci Fellows had a formal presentation. It was learned that FirstEnergy developed a process called FOG (Forced Oxidation Gypsum) for use in the scrubbing system of the smoke stack. The process creates a by-product called calcium sulfite, which is usually placed in a landfill. FOG converts the by-product into commercial-grade gypsum. Other interesting facts were:
-- Although river water is used in the cooling system, no waste water is returned to the river.
-- Fifty-five percent of the operating costs of the plant are used for the environmental system.
-- Five percent of the electricity generated by the plant is used for the environmental system.
-- At full operating capacity, all three generators, 24,000 tons of coal a day is consumed.
-- Ninety-four percent of the sulfite is removed by the scrubbers; 98 percent removal is targeted.
-- 280,000 gallons of water a minute flow over the cooling tower.
-- The Plant produces 56-million kilowatt-hours of electricity a day.
-- The Plant employs 475 people.
-- The U.S. Environmental Protection agency has its own monitors at the Plant to ensure environmental compliances.
The tour of the Plant concluded with a stop to tour the massive turbines and the control room. High pressure steam that was created from the ignition of the coal turns the turbines and this generates the electricity. The control room utilizes a mix of computer controlled and non-computer controlled sensors.
Later in the afternoon, the ComSci Fellows visited the National Gypsum Company. In 1999, the National Gypsum Company facility, located adjacent to the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant. In 1999, the National Gypsum Company built an $85-million facility to manufacture wallboard from the gypsum created by the FOG process. Gypsum is a mineral that naturally occurs in many parts of the world. In scientific terms, it is hydrous calcium sulfate. In nature, it usually occurs in veins or ledges and is normally found close to the surface, where it can be mined or quarried easily. Gypsum is the only natural substance that can be restored to its original rock-like state by the addition of water alone. Benjamin Franklin was one of the first to introduce gypsum to this country. Gypsum is used in some well-known brands of toothpaste. It is often used as a plaster to mold everyday objects like plates, cups, eating utensil handles, etc. By far, the most prevalent use of gypsum is for wallboard manufacture.
Mr. Mark Young, Quality Assurance Manager at National Gypsum, hosted the ComSci Fellows. After the introductions, the group embarked on a walking tour of the facility. The first stop was the storage facility for the gypsum. Over 1,000 tons of FOG a day from Bruce Mansfield is used at National Gypsum. Additional daily operations of the plant, such as how the gypsum is moved from the storage facility to the production area, were explained to the group as they trekked around the facility grounds.
The gypsum comes to National Gypsum from the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant on a 1.5 mile-long conveyor belt. After finishing the tour of the outside of the Plant, the group entered the actual production facility of National Gypsum.
In the highly-automated, production section of the plant, the group observed the gypsum slurry being sprayed between a moving sheet of light-colored paper and another moving sheet of darker-colored paper, effectively making a “sandwich” that was formed into wallboard at the forming station. The long, continuous “sandwich” then travels on belts and conveyors to a knife, where it is cut into panels of specific lengths. This long line allows time for the gypsum slurry to harden before it is cut (about four minutes). The panels are turned light-colored paper side up and sent into the kiln to dry. It was explained that it takes a total of approximately 45 minutes for the panels to go through the four drying stages. The panels enter the kiln much like slices of bread entering a food service toaster oven. The entire process line is one quarter of a mile long. Once the wallboard is dry, it is a strong, hard, and fire-resistant building material.
The ComSci Fellows were told that approximately 99 percent of the content of the wallboard manufactured at National Gypsum is composed of recycled material from power plants. The Plant produces approximately 3.2 million square feet of wallboard a day. Many of the ComSci Fellows found the simple elegance of the automated manufacturing progress impressive. It only takes 13 people in a shift to run the entire Plant. The process is fast and has the capability to produce wallboard of different thicknesses with different fire ratings. The tour of National Gypsum was considered by many to be the highlight of the day’s events.
On the second day of the Pittsburgh visit, the ComSci Fellows found themselves being led through a coal mine by Mr. Paul Stefko of the National Institute of Occupational and Safety Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Following the excellent tour and briefing in the mine, the ComSci Fellows settled into a conference room at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), where numerous presentations were given, including a welcome and introduction by Mr. James M. Ekmann, Associate Director, Office of Technology Imports and International Coordination; and a brief on America’s energy picture (e.g., supply, distribution, demand, deregulation, coal, gas, oil, renewables, nuclear, distributed generation, fuel cells, hydrogen, advanced combustion, FutureGen, Clean Coal Power Initiative, etc.) and an overview of NETL by Mr. Ekmann.
Following lunch, Dr. Anthony Cugini, Computational and Basic Sciences Focus Area Lead, briefed the ComSci Fellows on “computational energy science.” Additional briefing followed: “geological sequestration and CO2 capture” by Dr. Curt White, Senior Management and Technical Advisor, Office of Science, Technology and Analysis; “watershed science and technology” by Mr. Terry E. Ackman, Geosciences Division, Office of Science, Technology and Analysis; “environmental quality technologies” by Dr. Evan Granite, Research and Chemical Engineer and Mr. Donald Martello of the Environmental Science Division, Office of Sciences, Technology and Analysis.
The day ended with a visit to the Air Quality Monitoring Facility
The first stop on the third day was to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center where the ComSci Fellows were welcomed by Ms. Jody Cervenak, Chief Information Officer Physician Division and Mr. Dan Drawbaugh, Chief Information Officer for the University of Pittsburgh. Also present were Ms. Cathy Poole, Integrated Medical Information Technology Systems, Dr. G. Daniel Martich, Executive Director of E-Records and Dr. Loren Roth, Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer Quality Care, Associate Senior Vice Chancellor of the Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and co-chairman of bioterrorism preparedness.
Dr. Loren Roth was the first speaker of the morning and spoke about the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) system, which consists of the university and the medical center complex. The two separate corporate entities share expertise and pursue the goal of providing the best possible patient care. UPMC ranks eighth nationally in NIH funding, is a national leader in the use of advanced information technology and the second largest employer in western Pennsylvania with 39,000 employees. One of UPMC’s goals is to optimize health care delivery through information technology.
The second speaker of the morning was Mr. Dan Drawbaugh who continued lecturing on the UPMC system and the electronic health record initiative. UPMC is an integrated health care system consisting of 20 hospitals in western Pennsylvania and 1 hospital in Palermo, Sicily. There are approximately 2,000 physicians with UPMC and more than 4,000 with privileges at UPMC hospitals. In addition, UPMC operates an insurance division, provides diversified services such as home care and nursing home care, and invests in diverse health related industry, including bioinformatics and medical equipment.
The next speakers were Dr. Martich and Ms. Cervenak, who spoke about the National Strategic Agenda. The goals are to inform clinical practice through electronic health records, interconnect clinicians, personalize care and improve population health. The first goal has been met with the development of electronic records (e-records) of patients. These e-records are accessible to all of the hospitals/physicians in the UPMC system. UPMC now requires data entry by all physicians including drug prescriptions. The University component has also started a new course for medical students/pharmacists/nurses on the benefits of data entry. A pilot project, designated Med-Track, is aimed at meeting the second goal of the National Strategic Agenda. Med-Track will improve the communication infrastructure between physicians through e-records. The e-records will allow physicians within the system to have access to medications, allergies, lab data and radiographic data etc. for any patient with an established e-record. In response to the third goal, a pilot project designated “health track” is being tested by UPMC. The health track system will allow physicians to directly send messages to patients and to continuously monitor their patients. Similarly, patients will have better access to their physicians. Built into the system is the ability of patients to make on-line appointments and monitor other factors such as weight and BMI. These efforts, based on the National Strategic Agenda, have not gone unnoticed and Information Week recently recognized UPMC as the most innovative users of information technology in medical and health care. One of the benefits of this electronic system has been a dramatic decrease in errors that were previously attributed to illegible handwriting.
The last speaker of the morning was Ms. Poole who briefly spoke about UPMC’s partnership with the U.S. Air Force and the development of programs for health initiatives going high-tech. In 2001, UPMC established a partnership with the Department of Defense (DOD) that focuses on health care delivery and technology. The overall goals of this partnership are to improve patient care through advanced technologies, establish UPMC as a national model for improving the Nation’s health care delivery system, and support UPMC’s significant investment in technology. This partnership with DOD was driven by a decline in specialists in the private and military sectors, a need to provide ubiquitous access to care and a desire to improve the quality of care. In 2003, UPMC established the DOD Program Management Office, which centralizes management of the DOD programs, identifies business development and assists in government relations. The medical center will also soon enter into partnership with IBM/Hewlett Packard to promote research in health-related health information technology.
The next stop on day three of the Pittsburgh trip was to Solar Power Industries, Inc. in Belle Vernon, Pennsylvania. Mr. Richard Rosey, Vice President of Marketing and Sales, greeted the ComSci Fellows. Mr. Rosey first gave the group a brief lecture about the company’s history and about solar power.
The company was first started as part of Westinghouse for the development of a silicone crystal. It was then sold to EBARA Corporation, which makes agricultural and water pump machinery. The new company became Ebara Solar Inc. EBARA Corporation initially invested in Ebara Solar to develop energy sources for remote irrigation and water supply pumps. In 2003, the parent company EBARA cut its funding and auctioned all of Ebara Solar Inc., which were purchased by King of Fans, best known as one of the Nation's largest manufacturers of ceiling fans. King of Fans subsequently established the present company Solar Power Industries Inc., which has 60 employees and is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and sales of photovoltaic (PV) solar module technology.
Solar Power Industries standard products include solar cells, modules and systems. Approximately 95 percent of the company’s sales are in solar cells. The solar cells are 150 mm by 150 mm, which is one of the largest solar cells available in the industry. Their automated cell processing line is capable of producing these cells using multi-crystalline silicon wafer substrates, typically 300 microns thick. These cells are available in two standard bus bar configurations: a two-bus and a three-bus design. The front surface has a blue silicon nitride anti-reflective coating deposited by PECVD. This coating minimizes reflectivity and increases absorbance. The front bus bars and back interconnect contacts are screen-printed and fired silver, with widths of 2 mm and 5 mm, respectively. The back surface has an alloyed aluminum layer, making the back side positive and the front side negative upon illumination. The main factor that limits the amounts of these cells that can be sold is the supply of solar grade silicone.
The standard power modules are available in 30-, 50- and 100-watt sizes, with designs under way for up to 200 watts. The company also provides custom designs with versatile packaging of the solar cells, opening the way to integrating the power sources into many portable products, such as communications, marine, recreational, automotive, and traffic control applications. They also focus on working with architects to provide true building integrated photovoltaic modules for commercial and industrial utility grid connected applications.
Solar renewable energy has been growing approximately 25 percent in the past five years but most of this growth is outside the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy has an annual budget designated for solar power but only a small fraction of the budget is for manufacturing. California currently has legislation to have a certain percent of its energy derived from solar power. Outside the United States, some countries (e.g., Germany, Japan) promote the use of solar power. In this regard, most of Solar Power Industries products are exported to Germany and China whereas the United States controls about ten percent of the market. The solar panels are sold globally whereas systems are mostly for local sales.
After the introduction to solar power and Solar Power Industries, Inc., the ComSci Fellows were given a field trip around the facilities and witnessed the production and testing of solar cells.
David W. Houseknecht
Energy Program Manager
U.S. Geological Survey
(December 1, 2004)
Topic: Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Petroleum AssessmentDr. David Houseknecht joined the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1992, serving as Energy Program Manager until 1998. He has worked on Alaska North Slope basin analysis and petroleum resource assessments since 1995. He frequently has represented the USGS scientific perspective of ANWR, NPRA, and other Alaska oil and gas issues to Congress and the Administration. Previously, Dr. Houseknecht was a professor of geology at the University of Missouri (1978-1992) and a consultant to the oil industry (1981-1992), working on domestic and international projects. He received geology degrees from Penn State University (Ph.D. 1978, B.S. 1973) and Southern Illinois University (M.S. 1975).
Dr. Houseknecht provided a very timely, interesting and informative description of a new 1998 petroleum reserve assessment conducted by USGS for the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area; the presentation included an economic analysis of the viability of making the large investment in the exploration, production, and pipeline infrastructure necessary to bring the remote petroleum reserves to market in the United States and abroad. Dr. Houseknecht also described the environmentally sensitive issues involved in the potential development of the reserves that are located in the northwestern part of ANWR on the Artic Ocean coastline.
ANWR was established by the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act in 1980. In Section 1002 of the Act, Congress deferred a decision regarding future management of the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain (“1002 Area”) in recognition of the area’s potentially enormous oil and gas resources and its importance as wildlife habitat. A report of the resources (including petroleum) of the 1002 Area was submitted in 1987 to Congress by the Department of the Interior (DOI). Since completion of that report, numerous wells have been drilled and oil fields discovered near ANWR, new geologic and geophysical data have become available, seismic processing and interpretation capabilities have improved, and the economics of North Slope oil development have changed significantly.
The new assessment involved three years of study by USGS scientists, who coordinated work with colleagues in other Federal agencies, Alaska state agencies, and several universities. New field studies were conducted, new well and sample data were analyzed, and new geophysical data were acquired. Perhaps most importantly, all 1,400 miles of seismic data collected by a petroleum-industry consortium in 1984-1985 were reprocessed and reinterpreted. Seismic data collection within ANWR requires an act of Congress, and these are the only data ever collected within the 1002 area. All this information was integrated as basic input into the petroleum assessment. The results of the study indicated the total quantity of recoverable oil within the entire refuge is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95 percent and 5 percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 Area is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95 percent and 5 percent probability range); with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.
A previous assessment of the ANWR 1002 Area’s oil resources was conducted as part of the 1987 Report to Congress; however, the estimate made was based on the amount of in-place reserves (not recoverable). The current assessment for ANWR 1002 indicates an overall increase in oil reserves when compared to the 1987 estimate; ranges are 11.6 to 31.5 BBO versus 4.8 to 29.4 BBO (95 percent and 5 percent probabilities) and mean values are 20.7 BBO versus 13.8 BBO. The increase results from improved resolution of reprocessed seismic data, which allowed the identification of many more potential petroleum accumulations in parts of the 1002 Area, and analog information provided by recent nearby oil discoveries.
Dr. Houseknect’s formal presentation was followed by a question and answer period that included topics such as the potential impact of oil field operations on the fragile ecosystem found in the North Slope of Alaska, the impact of developing the oil reserves on the current United States’ crude oil imports, and the likelihood of these oil reserves being developed at all due to public sentiment for preservation of the refuge. (Selected excerpts are from USGS Fact Sheet No. 0028-01).
Kathryn Olesko
Associate Professor of History
Department of History and BMW Center for German and European Studies
Georgetown University
(December 8, 2004)Topic: The Role of Science and Technology in Daily Life
Dr. Kathryn Olesko is Associate Professor in the History Department of Georgetown College and in the Core Faculty of the School in Foreign Service, where she is presently Director of the Master of Arts in German and European Studies Program. She majored in Physics and Mathematics as an undergraduate at Cornell University, where she also received her master’s and doctoral degrees in History of Science. At Georgetown University since 1981, she teaches courses in the history of science and technology, European intellectual history, German history, and European Civilization. Her research focuses on the social history of science and technology in Germany, with special emphasis on how rational beliefs and actions relate to daily life, local cultures, and personal and professional identities. In addition, her work covers issues in historical methodology, everyday life, gender, and industrialization.
She was also the former director of Georgetown’s Program in Science, Technology and International Affairs as well as Co-Director of the Center for the Environment. She has held visiting appointments at Princeton University, Cornell University, and the Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science and fellowships from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. She is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Dr. Olesko has published widely on the history of science in Europe and the United States, and is editor of the annual journal, Osiris, published by University of Chicago Press for the History of Science Society. Her current research is on the cultural foundations of science in Germany, especially the cultural meaning of precision measurement.
Charles E. McQueary
Under Secretary for Science and Technology
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(January 5, 2005)Topic: Organization of Science and Technology Activities at the Department of Homeland Defense
Confirmed by the U.S. Senate, in March 203, Dr. Charles McQueary began his discussion by referring to the monumental reorganization that occurred within the Federal Government after the 9/11 tragedies. There was an accelerated ramp up of concern and emphasis on our Country’s internal security capabilities, which resulted in the development of many programs and organizational changes. The most monumental of these was the formation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Dr. McQueary explained that although currently affective, the DHS is in its infancy and is still in the process of defining a clear and adequate mission structure to evolve and advance to the next stage.
One important component of success for the newly developed Department was the application of the Nation’s scientific capabilities to develop technologies to protect against terrorist attacks. A Science and Technology (S&T) Division was established to be the lead in conducting research and development activities specifically related to this cause. Dr. McQueary explained that there are four other divisions besides S&T: (1) Border and Transportation Security; (2) Emergency Preparedness and Response; (3) Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection; and (4) Management. Additionally, besides the five Directorates of DHS, several other critical agencies are folding into the Department or being newly created. He said that technology plays an important role in each of these offices. Each one’s success is partly attributed to their ability to efficiently and affectively expedite the process of getting mission appropriate technologies to those on the front lines of their homeland protection activities.
One area of concern, which has greatly increased its capabilities and efficiency by utilizing counterterrorism driven technological developments, is border security. Considerable progress has been made in the ability of airports, seaports and border patrols to screen cargo and persons crossing the border and identify threats or potential threats appropriately. Technologies to improve capabilities for confirming the identities of international travelers to the United States have sharply increased the numbers of criminals arrested at border crossings as well as fugitives apprehended who were formerly identified. Utilizing new digital fingerprint technology, over 23,000 criminals or terrorists were arrested during one quarter of 2004.
The DHS S&T planning for the future has adopted the philosophy of applying a needs and risk based approach to research and development (R&D). The DHS S&T Division leads a department-wide effort to address R&D requirements of all DHS components by collaborating with interagency partners to develop an overarching National Strategic Plan for S&T initiatives. The approach is not to exhaust Department resources on developing new technologies for their own sake, but to identify existing requirements and problems and develop to them. The DHS S&T R&D budget for Fiscal Year 2005 is $1 billion. The budget is aligned with addressing major chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, high explosive, and cyber-related threats. New countermeasures are continually being developed to defend against each of these. A systems engineering approach which allows for flexibility and reusability of technologies is being followed to improve the Nation’s capabilities to prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorists related events.
The Fiscal Year 2005 budget for biological countermeasure research was provided an 84 percent increase over that for FY 2004. Goals in the future include expanding the existing BioWatch capabilities to monitor air in urban areas for biological threats. This technology will offer unprecedented protection to over 30 cities. Second generation BioWatch technologies will boost efforts in sample collection, analysis, and testing. The Washington, D.C. metropolitan public transportation system currently has first generation BioWatch capability. One area focus that still needs some improvement is the amount of response time needed to react to a detection alert. The Fiscal Year 2005 budget allocates 12 percent of its funding to research and development pertaining to prevention, protection against, and recovery from radiological or nuclear release. Field testing is currently underway of radiation detection technologies in the actual operating environments of the Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey. Developing advanced methods for detecting radioactive materials at our borders is a major concern.
The Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) is the primary funding arm of the S&T portion of DHS R&D. This organization engages the private sector primarily in efforts to detect and counter chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) and cyber attacks. Around 90 percent of their overall focus is not new development, but improving existing technologies that are reliable, cost-effective and can be produced quickly. HSARPA current areas of focus include personal protective equipment for emergency responders, cyber security, unified incident command technology, CBRNE detection systems and improvised explosive device detection.
Major efforts are currently underway to improve technologies that provide protection of ports and coastal waters by, among other things, improving recognition of small ships or rafts and increasing security on cargo bound for the United States. Hawkeye is an integrated port and coastal maritime surveillance system used by the U.S. Coast Guard and other entities. It helps in detecting, tracking, and identifying various vessel traffic and identities. Currently operating in Miami with plans to expand to Key West, Hawkeye improves detection of possibly harmful and illegal shipments and decreases maritime law enforcement reaction times. DHS S&T Border and Transportation Security personnel are developing futuristic “smart container” systems to enhance security and flow of commerce. Advanced cargo container security devices are being developed to detect tampering and track the status of cargo moving through a supply chain. Currently, only about three percent of all cargo can be checked using a manual effort.
The S&T Office of Interoperability is focused on enhancing emergency response capabilities of public safety officials and first responders at all levels of government nationwide. They set national standards and foster interoperability and compatibility in equipment, communications and in first responder training. Based on problems with the incompatibility of communication equipment and systems during 9/11, the S&T Office of Interoperability is working on implementing a central communication relay base that will provide the necessary filtering for any one responder to be able to talk to another.
Additional resources for S&T innovation come from the expanding network of university-based R&D Centers of Excellence, each with a different focus on terrorism. Research topics include food security, foreign animal diseases, behavioral and social aspects of terrorism, and microbial risk assessments. There are currently four locations with four additional locations to be added in Fiscal Year 2005.
John S. George
Physiologist
Biological and Quantum Physics
Los Alamos National Laboratory
(January 12, 2005)Topic: The Human Brain Topic
Dr. John George is a research scientist in the Life Sciences and Physics Divisions at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. George lectured to the ComSci Fellows on his work in the Human Brain Project at Los Alamos. The goal of research supported by the Human Brain Project is to develop composite techniques for non-invasive, functional brain imaging that provides resolution superior to any available imaging technique. His group is developing experimental, theoretical and computational procedures to combine anatomical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), functional MRI, and Magneto encephalography (MEG) into an integrated structural/functional imaging technique that exploits the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of each technique when used alone.
Dr. George first introduced the different techniques that are currently used to look at brain function/injury, which include MRIs, PET scanning, MEGs and optical methods. He also explained that there are differences in conductivity of neural tissue which can be exploited by these different methodologies. For example, there are differences between the grey matter and white matter of the brain. The grey matter, which is basically a sheath around the brain, is the area where the actual "processing" is done whereas the white matter is the network that provides communication between different grey matter areas, and between the grey matter and the rest of the body.
Dr. George’s group uses the retinal model for his studies. Visual stimulation to the retina can be used to investigate communication between different types of cells that are found in the human brain. These studies essentially involve using different types of retinal cell stimulation to investigate neuroimaging patterns using different neuroimaging techniques such as functional MRI. Because his work centers on functional neuroimaging and the development and application of techniques for imaging neurofunction, Dr. George also works on neural electromagnetic measurement (in particular MEG and EEG), which provides a number of advantages for the non-invasive characterization of neural function. As part of his lecture, Dr. George provided examples of imaging fast optical signals from sematosensory cortex when different whiskers on a rat are stimulated, demonstrating the specificity of a response to different stimuli.
Besides his studies in neuroimaging, Dr. George has also been involved in development of software to allow the use of digital Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data to provide individual anatomical context for source localization and as a geometrical constraint for modeling. His group has also developed novel techniques for confocal microscopy and endoscopy, developed advanced instruments and modeling strategies for macroscopic photon migration spectroscopy and time-resolved optical tomography, and demonstrated the feasibility of thermal imaging of neural function. Recently they have demonstrated dynamic microscopic imaging of fast intrinsic signals that are tightly coupled to the neuronal electrical response.
Steven L. Rolston
Department of Physics
University of Maryland
(January 12, 2005)Topic: Quantum Computing
Dr. Steven Rolston received a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He was a post-doctoral research associate in Atomic Physics at the University of Washington and at Harvard University. Dr. Rolston was a member of the technical staff of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce. Additionally, Dr. Rolston is with the Atomic Molecular and Optical Group at the Physics Department at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Dr. Rolston explained that quantum computing is a new science from quantum mechanics (QM) and information science. He gave a brief history of both, specifically explaining QM oddities and superposition in atoms. He further explained the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen Paradox and entanglement.
Dr. Rolston explained quantum bits (qubits) can be a superposition of 0 and 1; therefore, there is massive storage capability. He then explained Shor’s Algorithm and presented information about cryptography and how all public key cryptographic systems rely on the difficulty of factoring large numbers and the possibility of quantum computing being a revolution in computer science, especially with applying Shor’s Algorithm and turning it into a quantum mechanics problem.
Dr. Rolston explained quantum simulation is where one quantum system simulates another. Quantum communication, with attenuated sources, is 100 percent physically secure and has been demonstrated over kilometer distances at NIST.
Dr. Rolston summarized that many qubits have been proposed; few qubits have been demonstrated; the maximum number of entangled qubits equals four; there is no demonstration of sufficient decoherence; there is no demonstration of sufficient fidelity; there is no demonstration of sufficient number of qubits; and there is measurement of single qubits in a few systems.
Barry Bozeman
Regent’s Professor of Public Policy
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
(January 26, 2005)Topic: R&D Laboratories in the United States’ National Innovation System
Dr. Barry Bozeman specializes in science and technology policy, as well as organization theory and design. He is the author or editor of fourteen books, including Red Tape and Bureaucracy (Prentice Hall, 2000) and Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System (Columbia University Press, 1998). For nearly 20 years, Dr. Bozeman was on the faculty of the Maxwell School of Public Affairs, Syracuse University, where he was jointly appointed in the L.C. Smith College of Engineering and was founding Director of the Center for Technology and Information Policy. His government experience includes positions at the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the National Science Foundation, and Japan's National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Bozeman has been involved in a wide array of public policy consulting activities. Among others, he has served as a technology policy consultant to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation's Office of Evaluation. Dr. Bozeman received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Ohio State University.
Dr. Bozeman has been studying laboratories all over the world (16,000 labs) from the perspective of how they are organized, how innovative and successful they are, and what are the national-level guidance and constraints. He has written many papers and books on the subject. He has drawn conclusions from his analysis attributes that assist laboratories in being successful. He concluded that national-level laboratory policy can assist the laboratory mission, collaborative efforts, and how successful the laboratory transitions research to the market economy. Dr. Bozeman emphasized national-level policymakers can assist in focusing national goals. Currently, there are a few countries outside of the United States that focus their laboratories better than the United States, by developing a National Innovation System, a rational research plan to affect the economy based on metrics. His analysis studied why the United States is so innovative even though, is his opinion; the United States is not organized from a national-level policy perspective. His findings concluded the United States is successful because the order of magnitude of funding expended on research, compared to other nations. He also stated that the number of universities in the United States as compared to all other nations, the desire of international students to attend the universities in our country, and the desire of international students to remain in the United States, assist in the United States’ success in innovation.
Mark Modzelewski
Managing Director
Lux Research
(January 26, 2005)Topic: Presentation of Lux Research Analysis of Competitive Position of U.S. States in Nanotechnology Research and Commercialization
Mr. Mark Modzelewski is Managing Director of Lux Research. He founded and was Executive Chairman of The NanoBusiness Alliance, the world’s fastest growing technology association. He is a member of the Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group to President Bush’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
Lux Research is the world’s premier research and advisory firm focusing on the business and economic impact of nanotechnology and related emerging technologies. Lux Research has been involved in nanotechnology for four and a half to five years, and is instrumental in United States’ technology public policy. In benchmarking, Lux Research triangulates the data from Fortune 500 firms, intelligence agencies/DOD, and university/nanotechnology start-ups.
Mr. Modzelewski defined nanotechnology as the “purposeful engineering of matter at scales of less than 100 nanometers (nm) to achieve size-dependent properties and functions” and identified a range of products: gold nanoshell cancer treatments, artificial setae, carbon nanotube crossbar memory, and semiconductor nanocrystal biolabels.
Nanomaterials enable premium prices and high margins (e.g., clothing and tennis balls). Materials (e.g., nanotubes), life sciences (e.g., alternative to bone) and storage and computing devices are examples of sectors using nanotechnology.
Governments, corporations and venture capitalists will spend more than $8.6 billion world-wide on nanotechnology research and development in 2004, with North America and Asia spending about equally. Media coverage of nanotechnology – both positive and negative – is increasingly exponentially with an increase in scientific articles and patents. Mr. Modzelewski stated that the United States is in a great position for generating patents in nanotechnology.
Andrew F. Mazzara (USMC, retired)
Director
Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies
Penn State University
(February 2, 2005)Topic: Non-Lethal Defense Technologies and Future Warfare
Colonel Andrew Mazzara gave a very interesting and informative briefing on non-lethal defense technologies (NLDT) and their use in military and law enforcement settings. He began by giving some background on himself and the Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies (INLDT). It is basically the only such academic-based center in this area and is part of Penn State University’s Applied Research Laboratory. Penn State University ranks second in the Nation in terms of university-based total defense research funding. Penn State University and the INLDT do not develop any non-lethal defense technologies, but the INLDT assesses the science and engineering, as well as the program plan for various such technologies and advises various units of the military and law enforcement on these technologies' best usage.
Colonel Mazzara spent 28 years in the U.S. Marine Corps in various positions dealing with artillery. At the end of his formal military career, he was asked to serve as the leader of a new Department of Defense team studying non-lethal technologies. He then retired from the military and worked on other defense-related issues before heading up the INLDT for the past several years.
There are a wide variety of NLDTs including tasers and other electrical stun guns, chemical agents, mechanical means such as nets and spikes to stop vehicles (the military typically wants to stop approaching cars and law enforcement typically wants to stop fleeing suspects), and delivery systems that use acoustic, ultrasound and other forms of electromagnetic radiation to disable temporarily disruptive personnel.
The military uses the term "non-lethal" while law enforcement personnel typically prefer "less lethal." This is because virtually any technology, especially one that uses physical force, can cause accidental deaths in at least a relatively small proportion of instances.
Colonel Mazzara discussed the concept of four generations of warfare historically. The first generation entailed muskets and other small, inaccurate firearms, as well as small units of personnel. The second generation involved machine guns and longer range artillery. The third generation was characterized by precision munitions and increased firepower. Currently, we are in the fourth generation with few boundaries between formal war and peace, and more emphasis on such things as psychological and information warfare.
This fourth generation warfare is also characterized by the "three block war." This urban warfare scenario entails military personnel engaging in a humanitarian mission on one city block, while their comrades are involved in low intensity conflict on an adjoining block, and the third consecutive block is characterized by full combat operations.
In general, NLDTs are useful in urban warfare and some crowd control situations, but are not appropriate for deterring terrorist activities (such as improvised explosive devices in current-day Iraq). NLDTs could be successfully deployed; however, to defuse a terrorist hostage situation.
In 1997, the Marine Corps was designated the executive agent for a joint service (DoD-wide) NLDT program. The Army actively pushed to obtain this responsibility, while the Marines did not. However, Colonel Mazzara felt it was precisely because the Marines were culturally disinclined towards NLDTs that they were assigned this responsibility, the thinking being that if the Marines embraced NLDTs, then the other military services would follow suit.
There is a ~$43 million DoD budget for NLDT.
NLDT should not necessarily be the first resort of military or law enforcement personnel and should not be the only option for any deployed military force. Much discretion for NLDT use is still given to individual military and police commanders for NLDT use. There has been discussion about whether a national policy is needed, but in general these commanders cherish their individual discretion.
There are many legal reviews before any weapons are fielded. Colonel Mazzara went over some of the relevant treaties that cover chemical weapons usage, for example. Overall, he did an excellent job outlining the backdrop, scenarios and challenges, the technologies themselves, technical issues, and non-technical issues surrounding NLDT usage. This is likely to be a future growth area for both the military and law enforcement.
For more information, refer to the website at: http://www.nldt.org.
Michael S. Francis
Program Director
DARPA’s Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems
(February 9, 2005)
Topic: The Next Generation of Unmanned Air Vehicles
Dr. Michael Francis opened his presentation by pointing out that unmanned air vehicles have been around for quite some time. Shortly after the Wright Brothers’ first manned heavier-than-air powered flight at the beginning of the 20th Century came the "Kettering Bug," the first UAV.
The development of UAVs has come a long way since then. DARPA views these vehicles as information systems with an air vehicle as a peripheral. Dr. Francis contented that many of today's modern aircraft could be considered as autonomous in the same way. The Boeing 777 and stealth bombers really could fly themselves and in the case of military aircraft, the human is on board only to authorize weapons release.
The first generation of UAVs differed only slightly from regular air frames with the crew on the ground instead of the cockpit. The pilots controlled every maneuver of the vehicle. The UAV was of conventional design and required a reliable line of site in order to ensure the vehicle could be commanded and controlled. These platforms were often given missions that were considered "dull" for piloted aircraft.
This was contrasted with the contemporary UAV systems, which have moved to more and more autonomy. The pilot is now called the operator because the UAVs involve no manual options. They have become almost fully automated from take-off, navigation, to landing the vehicle itself. Today's UAVs have extended range and reach, incorporating unique and specialized platforms housing multi-sensor packages.
The future UAV missions will be anything but dull; in fact, they will be designed to go places that are extremely dangerous. Missions will include Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), electronic attack, surveillance, and strike. Their range will be extensive with significant endurance once arriving in the area of interest, even with airborne refueling capability. They will be capable of large payload capacity to include synthetic aperture radar, electro-optic, infrared, and electronic warfare capabilities.
The future, in DARPA's plans, will see collaborative operations between multiple UAVs where formation flight will be choreographed deep into denied environments. They will be capable of monitoring their own damage from enemy fire and automatically compensate for changes in aerodynamics through advanced software. Formations will be able to adapt to the loss of one or multiple shoot-downs and will be able to integrate UAVs out-of-range for bi-static pulsing of targets while maintaining the stealth cover of those in harms way. These attributes will only serve to increase survivability with "predictable effects but unpredictable tactics."
DARPA has made significant progress to date with two prototypes, the A-45A (first flown in May 2002) and the X-47A (first flown in Feb 2003). The A-45A accomplished a multiple vehicle (with a piloted aircraft) coordinated demonstration in August 2004, the first test on the path to collaborative operations.
Dr. Francis explained DARPA's business model used in developing these first prototypes. They have developed a common operating system between the two defense industry giants participating in the UAV development. They have also hired an "integrator/broker/observer" to serve as a third party, facilitator, and referee. DARPA has also allowed for small business to break into this field so dominated by industry giants by some unique business practices, which serve to promote competition and ownership. Dr. Frances described the results as "increasing the idea pool while decreasing the technological risk."
Dr. Francis concluded with what he saw as some broad challenges to his project. The first and maybe the highest hurtle is building user and public confidence over reliability and safety of unpiloted aircraft. He also discussed the regulatory barriers including airspace control and vehicle/system certification standards. Integration into the infrastructure would have to be addressed (e.g., basing, logistics, and maintenance).Lastly, Dr. Francis discussed meeting affordability expectations. UAVs were sold on the prospect they would be less expensive than their manned counterparts. But as more expensive and complex payloads are added and R&D costs are factored into the baseline, these low-cost expectations will have to be tempered until mass production lowers the per unit cost.
Dr. Francis indicated that DARPA would be handing the project over to a joint program office led by the Air Force in Fiscal Year 2007.
Michael Rodemeyer
Executive Director
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
(February 16, 2005)Topic: Challenges Facing Genetically Modified Food and Other Agricultural Biotechnology Products
Genetically modified foods and agricultural products are a lighting rod for many, although 65 percent of the population knows virtually nothing about them. The subject is politically-charged, and even terminology is subject to considerable debate.
Intentional genetic modification of agricultural products has been going on for over 4,000 years, as man has repeatedly tried (and succeeded) to selectively breed and strengthen particular characteristics into agricultural products, including animals. Between these intentional modifications, as well as naturally-occurring hybridization and cross-pollination, there are no natural foods today that are the same as those found 4,000 years ago. These facts are important to recognize because many people today feel that only recently have agricultural products undergone any genetic changes. This is clearly not true, although it is correct to say that only recently have recombinant bioengineering techniques been applied to achieve genetic modification of foodstuffs. However, the use of recombinant techniques has the potential to surpass 4,000 years of genetic modifications in one fell swoop.
The history of food genetically-modified via recombinant techniques (GM foods) is a relatively short and turbulent one. In the public’s perception, GM foods have moved uncomfortably fast. The 1990s marks the first introduction of recombinant-based products for public consumption and release. This includes the Flav-Savr tomato, Golden Rice, Ice Minus, and Starlink corn. Common threads among all these products are that they fared poorly in the marketplace, and drew heated opposition among activist groups, concerned about potential health effects and invasion of native agricultural species. The 1990s also marks the introduction of recombinant bovine growth hormone and the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease in the United Kingdom. Though not connected to genetically-modified (GM) foods, activist groups were able to link them nevertheless in the public’s perception. Despite a National Academies of Sciences report that concluded the recombinant techniques used to create GM foods posed no greater health concern than other longstanding methods to achieve genetic changes (e.g., gamma radiation, chemical treatment), there continues to be strong resistance by several countries as well as activist groups, for a variety of reasons, which include:
-- Segregation Issues: Segregation and labeling of GM-derived products is desired by many, but is problematic with the current agricultural infrastructure. Crops are harvested from many sources and combined into large containers for shipment and processing. They are extensively co-mingled, and to keep GM and non-GM products separate requires a vastly different infrastructure, which would necessitate cleaning of containers and farm processing equipment to ensure no cross-contamination – all at very high expense. In the United States, most GM food is fed to animals or processed to extract components (e.g., corn syrup), so it is several levels removed from direct human consumption, which keeps concerns from surfacing.
-- Adventitious Presence: Organic growers do not want contamination of GM crops and express concern about the presence of GM crops in adjoining farms. This is even more of a concern when crops are used to produce biologics. There is tension between local governments that want to encourage high-technology investments in their areas, and local farmers of non-GM crops that feel threatened by potential cross-contamination and becoming non-competitive against the higher value crops.
-- GM Insects and Animals: There are already celebrated examples of GM animals – cloned livestock, but GM livestock have also been promoted for potential BSE (Mad Cow Disease) resistance and are currently being developed as bioreactors to produce important proteins, vaccines and other pharmaceutical products. GM insects, though not yet released into the environment, have been proposed as a means to control or eradicate pests and insect-transmitted diseases. While regulators have begun to consider the framework of jurisdiction of GM animals and insects, there remain a great many issues still unresolved in this area. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently taken the position to classify transgenic salmon as a new animal drug. This forces producers to follow the same path as pharmaceutical manufacturers in proving the safety and efficacy of new drugs, which can take up to a decade and cost up to $1 billion in protracted clinical trials for full approvals. However, it remains unclear whether the FDA has jurisdiction in the event of accidental release of these salmon into the wild and what would happen if they cross-bred with non-GM salmon. This may now cross over into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) domain, but these interagency boundaries and jurisdictions have not been resolved.
-- Social and Cultural Issues: As stated above, the rate of change of development and adoption of GM foods has been uncomfortably fast for many in the general public, and this has led to the strong activist responses that the GM food industry is encountering. In addition, GM activities have been associated with globalization worries and concerns about an “American takeover” on a global scale. This again, has given many groups reason for pause and resistance.
From today going forward, there will be continued improvements in existing GM products, but there will probably be no new significant product introductions for the time being. However, as patents begin expiring, open sources for GM products continue to expand, and other countries begin to develop their own GM varieties, acceptability of GM products worldwide will increase. There have been attempts to deal with the regulatory policy frameworks required to deal with GM animals and insects, but clearly this remains a major hurdle.
Ian Noble
Professor of Global Change Research
Australian National University and Adviser to the BioCarbon Fund
The World Bank
(March 5, 2005)Topic: Global Climate Change
Mr. Ian Noble is the Professor of Global Change Research at the Australian National University and is currently on a staff exchange program with the World Bank in Washington, D.C., where he is an advisor on the BioCarbon Fund and on issues relating to adaptation to climate change. He was responsible for the technical design of the BioCarbon Fund, which is now operational and is expected to support projects in developing countries using finance from the private and public sectors. In Australia, he participated in the public and policy debate over responses to climate change and served as a Commissioner in an inquiry into the future of the Australian forests and forest industries. Mr. Noble is an ecologist by training and has over 100 publications on topics including animal behavior, vegetation dynamics, ecosystem modeling, expert systems and the science-policy interface. In 1999, he was elected as Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
Mr. Noble’s briefing was titled, “Climate Change: The State of Play.” This briefing discussed what quantitative tools and processes he is currently using to guide his recommendations to the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund. The models he is using interpolates thousands of years of data of carbon found in ice formations, attempting to extrapolate future climate temperatures and sea levels, and how humans on Earth are affecting the Earth’s climates and sea levels. His data shows that the Earth’s average temperatures will continue to rise in the next 100 years causing the weather patterns to become more extreme. The cycles of rainy and dry seasons will last longer, possibly causing indigenous people to have a difficult time to coping with the type of crops they are used to planting and eating, especially in third world countries that do not have the resources to irrigate their crops or plant perennials. Land which is currently in a temperate region (United States, India, Europe) will be come warmer for more days in the year and more dry, and land farther north (Russia, Canada, China) which currently is colder will become more usable for growing crops. The primary cause to the change in temperatures and precipitation is due to the predicted increase in carbon in the atmosphere, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide, caused by emissions from human activity (pollution). Mr. Noble emphasized that to reverse the current trends in the increase in annual carbon in the atmosphere will take all the nations in the world to work together to reduce the carbon. If nations do not expend resources to mitigate the release of carbon, nations will have to expend resources to adapt to the changing climate.
William K. Hubbard
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
(March 9, 2005)Topic: Drug Importation
The focus of the presentation was to provide a broad overview on drug importation. In his opening remarks, Mr. William Hubbard highlighted key facts on FDA. Subsequently, he discussed FDA’s mission, legislative history, and “The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” Next, he discussed briefly the drug importation history and why the United States’ consumers are buying foreign drugs (the key driver being the price savings, ease of Internet purchasing, and confidence in the quality of drugs from places such as Canada). FDA considers the drug importation as a fundamental challenge to the United States’ drug regulatory system.
Mr. Hubbard highlighted some of FDA’s concerns through interesting visual aids. These are volume, scope, resources, regulatory authority, uncertainty in the origin of drugs, “sameness,” untruthful websites, pharmacy quality issues, disclaimers, and counterfeits. Some of the websites are claiming to be operating in Canada while they are not. A simple laboratory analysis of popular prescription drugs (e.g., Lipitor, Viagra, and Ambien) offered through a website called “Canadian Generics,” failed on most criteria such as “potency,” “dissolution,” and “impurities.” Many times fake drugs are sent to United States’ consumers from shadowy operations in the third world. Other examples of violations are: drugs are sent as substitute for United States’ brand name drug when the label clearly says that it is not interchangeable.
Lately, a few states in the United States has been undertaking drug importation ventures as a service to the low-income and/or seniors in the states. Mr. Hubbard presented the issues associated with one such program in place in the State of Wisconsin. The PSW findings on this program noted the following: (1) one-third of total prescriptions violated state agreement; (2) 237 impermissible drugs dispensed; (3) 134 drugs were non-FDA approved; and (4) six drugs required refrigeration. The FDA findings noted that two-thirds of total prescriptions violated state agreement and mostly generic drugs were dispensed. A major point of concern with the use of the Internet pharmacies (that are linked on the State of Wisconsin homepage) is that the customer has to sign a release waiver stating that he/she would not sue the pharmacy for any loss whatsoever. Often, counterfeit drugs are dispensed and the packaging looks very similar to the real one. The chain of events that take place after a customer places an order on the Internet pharmacy is that they fax the order to an outfit in Bahamas (for example), which in turn sends the medications to the United States’ customer (often making it appear to have been shipped from Canada or the United States). Many times the United States’ customers think that they are getting a good deal on price when they place orders through these Internet pharmacies. However, a simple inquiry at the corner pharmacy store in the United States indicates that the United States’ drug prices on common brand name drugs are often cheaper than those offered by the Internet pharmacies.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a report that outlined that personal drug importation cannot be done safely while commercial importation is possible with significant new resources and authority. The report noted that cost of such a legalized system would be quite large compared to the savings. It also stated that the future research and development (R&D) would be significantly affected and this could have a significant impact on IPR and liability.
The U.S Commerce Department published a report on price controls overseas. The report indicates that price controls in Europe limit R&D, generic drugs are inadequately used in Europe, and eliminating foreign drug controls would benefit United States’ companies.
Mr. Hubbard discussed some avenues that could assure safety. These are: increased inspection at border, of foreign pharmacies, and foreign manufacturers; implementation of an alternative drug review process; reciprocity with foreign countries; tracking and tracing technology for reimported American drugs.
The following questions remain: will Congress enact legislation, will congressional leaders permit and vote on importation, will consumers continue to seek foreign drugs, will demand level off, will more states and cities establish importation programs, will FDA take legal action?
The ComSci Fellows learned a great deal about issues related to drug importation in the Internet age and political twists and the tremendous challenges that the FDA and the U.S. Customs personnel face in making United States’ consumers safe from consuming counterfeit and illegal drugs from overseas.
Additional information can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/.
Mark A. Boroush
Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Technology Policy
Technology Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
(March 23, 2005)Topic: The Department of Commerce’s Role in Technology Transfer
Mr. Mark Boroush, a Senior Policy Analyst in the Office of Technology Policy (OTP), Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, talked to the ComSci Fellows about the role of the OTP in federal technology transfer policy. Mr. Boroush began by explaining that technology transfer encompasses a broad range of activities in which technology or knowledge is developed by one entity and transferred to another. In the government, technology transfer usually refers to the transfer of early stage technology developed under federal funding to public or private entities for the purpose of further development and commercialization. Such transfer often involves invention disclosure, patenting, patent licensing, and cooperative research and development (R&D) agreements. However, technology transfer may take place by other means such as publication or transfer of equipment or personnel. Many organizations, including universities, private companies, and government laboratories, participate in technology transfer, and the activity may be international in scope. In bringing science to market in this way, the biggest challenge is often convincing industry to invest enough resources to bridge the “valley of death” between discovery and commercialization.
Mr. Boroush emphasized that the United States will have to work to sustain its technological leadership in the years ahead, so as to maintain the United States as the preferred location for innovation, growth, and creation of economic value. In this endeavor, new know-how and technology flowing from federally-funded R&D will continue to be a critical resource for United States’ economic competitiveness. Federally-funded R&D is substantial, totaling $276 billion in Fiscal Year 2002, of which 18 percent was for basic research, 24 percent for applied research, and 58 percent for development. Moreover, the Federal Government provided 59 percent of the support for basic research, and 32 percent of applied research.
The current framework for technology transfer of innovation arising from federally-funded R&D began in 1980, with the enactment of the Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (“Stevenson-Wydler Act”) and the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 (“Bayh-Dole Act”). These and subsequent laws provided for the patenting and licensing of inventions developed in federal laboratories and federally-funded laboratories, such as those of universities or small businesses. According to a 2003 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the transfer of government-funded technology to the private sector has grown significantly, and has become an increasingly important part of the overall industrial commercialization of technology. Moreover, such technology transfer has resulted in many commercial successes and led to entirely new technology-based industries such as biotechnology and information technology.
The Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration and Office of Technology Policy play key roles in federal technology transfer policy development. The Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary have statutory roles, and participate in policy discussions and development with practitioners, federal agencies, the Administration, Congress, and other stakeholders. In addition, the Department of Commerce’s Office of General Counsel is the lead agency in resolving legal issues raised by federal agency patenting and licensing of intellectual property. OTP has a long history of contributing to the development of major technology transfer legislation.
Another way in which OTP contributes to policy development is through the coordination of the Interagency Working Group on Tech Transfer (IWGTT). IWGTT is a long-standing working committee that includes technology transfer principals from most of the federal science and technology agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the Veterans Administration, as well as the Department of Commerce. The IWGTT is chaired by OTP, and meets monthly to discuss policy issues and related topics of interest to the federal laboratory technology transfer community. The agencies reflect a diversity of technology transfer programs, priorities, authorities, and goals, so IWGTT focuses on advancing policy in areas of consensus. The group is recognized by Congress as a source of informed opinion, and has been influential in shaping policy.
OTP also contributes to technology transfer policy by producing congressionally mandated annual performance reports on federal laboratory technology transfer. The Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 governs the current reporting process, which involves annual performance reports to the Office of Management and Budget, the President, and Congress. As a result of this law, the previously “irregular” reporting process became an annual, substantive matter. The law requires each agency that operates a federal laboratory to report, “to the Office of Management and Budget, as part of the agency’s annual budget submission, on the activities performed by that agency and its Federal laboratories” pursuant to the technology transfer laws. The agencies submit these annual reports to the Department of Commerce, where OTP uses them to develop an Annual Summary Report, including information on all agencies with federal laboratories. The Annual Summary Report is then submitted to the President and Congress. The reports cover the goals of each agency’s technology transfer program; the role of technology transfer in the agency’s mission; statistics on patenting, licensing, and cooperative agreements; downstream outcomes such as new products, businesses, job creation, income, and impact on economy; and overall “bang for the buck” resulting from program resources and the and intellectual property portfolio. While this reporting is not quite the same as that required in the Government Performance and Results Act, it is kindred in spirit and is one response to the call for greater accountability.
Mr. Boroush predicted that in the future, publicly-funded research would be increasingly important as a foundation for innovation contributing to United States’ competitiveness in the global economy. Accordingly, OTP’s role in developing policy that will make technology transfer and public/private partnering work more efficiently will be increasingly important. Moreover, Mr. Boroush was optimistic that this endeavor will be successful because OTP has learned to ask the questions that prepare it to undertake this important policy task.
Visit to the Science Applications International Corporation’s (SAIC) Public Safety Integration Center (PSIC)
(McLean, Virginia)
(March 30, 2005)Dr. James W. Morentz, Vice President for Homeland Security Technology and the Director of the Public Safety Integration Center hosted the ComSci Fellows at their McLean Headquarters. He gave an overview of the lab and the PSIC mission to prevent natural, technical, and/or terrorist events; and in those events that cannot be prevented will be detected in order to alert and protect people and the economy and respond and recover effectively.
The ComSci Fellows were able to see first-hand how integrated systems can be quickly pulled together from a wide variety of legacy hardware and software and newer GOTS and COTS products. How law enforcement personnel and first responders could interact to a fictitious suspicious package at a restaurant in the Washington, D.C. area was demonstrated.
A call was simulated from the restaurant to a 911-dispatch center, which contacted local police. An explosion model output using the approximate size of the package described at the restaurant was used to predict affected areas. The analysis was then superimposed on a map of the local area and sent to first-responders and displayed on a simulated computer in a police cruiser on the scene. Software identified where local traffic should be diverted away from the scene and which police officers where closest to the divert points.
Public safety radio interoperability is a fundamental capability in the PSIC, which houses an audio interconnect device for linking disparate land mobile radio systems and commercial wireless networks together on a "demand-authorized" basis.
SAIC is working with numerous vendors and service providers to demonstrate their latest technologies. The vendors work across six major areas towards a solution: collaboration, access control, intelligence and surveillance, vulnerability and consequence assessment, interoperable incident management, and public safety communications.
The goal of the PSIC is to provide the ability to make the right decision whenever and wherever it is needed, from on-scene first responders to national decision makers.
Visit to the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
U.S. Department of Transportation
McLean, Virginia
(April 14, 2005)The ComSci Fellows spent an exceptional day at the Federal Highway Administration’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. The group was welcomed by Mr. Dennis Judycki, Associate Administrator for Research, Development and Technology, who also provided an overview of the facility.
Briefings on FHWA Corporate Research and Technology Management and Services were given by Ms. Deb Elston, Corporate Research and Technology; Ms. Marci Kenney, Program Development and Evaluation; and Mr. John McCracken, Research and Technical Services. An overview of the Research and Development (R&D) Offices was given by Dr. Steve Chase, Infrastructure R&D and current ComSci Fellow; Mr. Toni Wilbur, Operations R&D; and Mr. Tom Granda, Safety R&D.
The afternoon was spent touring various laboratories, including the Structures Lab, the Hydraulics Lab, the Bridge Management Information Systems Lab, the Aerodynamics Lab, the Traffic Research Lab, the Photometric and Visibility Lab, and the Highway Driving Simulator. The ComSci Fellows were treated to a Segway demonstration and had the opportunity to ride one.
Visit to the Produce Quality and Safety Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Beltsville, Maryland)
(April 20, 2005)This site visit, hosted by Dr. Arvind Bhagwat, Dr. Ken Gross and Dr. Jim McAvoy, consisted of an overview slide presentation about the mission, capabilities, and some highlighted research activities at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC).
BARC is the largest and most diversified agricultural research complex in the world. They conduct research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority and provide information access and dissemination in order to ensure high-quality safe food and other agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs of Americans; sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhance the natural resource base and the environment, and; provide economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as a whole.
One traditional role of BARC is well-known to consumers, and that is providing objective reference data on food ingredients and commodities, such as recipes, standardized food labels, and manufacturers' product information. They are also responsible for standardizing other reference data, such as portion sizes, nutrient values of ingredients and commodities, and food group classifications.
Poultry sperm lose functional competence very quickly during liquid and cryogenic storage, so it is imperative to develop successful storage methods. BARC scientists have determined the influence of sperm phenotype on liquid and cryogenic storage conditions. They also determined the molecular basis of sperm subsistence in the sperm storage tubules using serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) and developed an in vitro model to elucidate molecular and cellular events regulating prolonged oviductal sperm storage and sustained fertility in poultry.
Non-thermal technologies for inactivation of pathogenic and spoilage bacteria in foods is another priority area for BARC. Non-thermal approaches are much better in preserving food flavor and texture, but have not been as effective as thermal methods in bacterial control. The current emphasis is to integrate bacteriaphage and bacteriocins with other antimicrobials with high-pressure processing to enhance microbial inactivation. There are already several noted commercial applications, including treatment of orange juice, guacamole, and shucking of mussels. High pressure approaches also hold potential for neutralization of prions associated with bovine spongiform encephalitis (Mad Cow Disease).
New knowledge derived from genome information is critical for understanding numerous biological processes that operate in plant pathogens and for developing novel strategies to combat plant diseases. One approach for introducing new genetic information is to develop and implement viral-based vectors for the rapid delivery and expression of foreign gene sequences in plants as a means of testing sequences and protein products which may be useful in plant and animal disease control, as well as engineering other desirable characteristics.
Controlling the growth of human pathogens on fresh-cut fruits and vegetables is a growing concern, as the demand for these types of consumer products is exploding. The objectives of the BARC research is to gain a greater understanding of the biochemical and molecular genetic mechanisms involved in the attachment, survival and growth of food borne pathogens on fresh fruits and vegetables.
The overview was followed by an opportunity to evaluate fresh-cut apple slices treated with antioxidant and preservative solutions developed at BARC for maintaining the quality and shelf-life of fresh-cut apple slices. The objective for the dip solution is to prevent browning; maintain firmness, aroma, and flavor; inhibit microbial growth; be inexpensive; and be formulated from natural or other additives already accepted in the food industry. In fact, BARC scientists were successful and had conducted extensive laboratory and consumer taste-testing to validate their findings.
The same group that developed the dip solution and conducted consumer taste-tests gave the ComSci Fellows an opportunity to repeat these consumer taste-tests. The ComSci Fellows evaluated the instrumental and sensory attributes of apple slices of “Gold Rush,” “Granny Smith,” “Fuji,” and “Pink Lady” varieties, varieties, treated with various dip solutions. It was truly remarkable how well the best prototype dip solution preserved, and by some tasters actually improved, the flavor and texture of treated apples.
The visit to BARC concluded with brief tours of some of the laboratories, which largely resembled those of typical wet chemistry research laboratories.
Visit to the Goddard Space Flight Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
(Greenbelt, Maryland)
(April 20, 2005)Dr. D. J. Emmanuel, Visitor Center Operations Manager, and Ms. Nina Harris of the Public Affairs Office were tour guides for the ComSci Fellows’ visit to NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. After starting at the Visitor Center, the group viewed the Hubble Space Telescope cleanroom. They also toured other spacecraft test facilities in the same building complex such as the centrifuge and acoustics chambers.
The ComSci Fellows toured the Earth Science Control Center in Building 32 where personnel operate and control a variety of remote sensing spacecraft that track weather and perform atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanographic scientific measurements. Mr. Paul Ondrus handled various questions about the backgrounds and experiences of the personnel who work in this control center and the types of data that these spacecraft handle. Goddard Space Flight Center is the lead NASA Field Center for earth science and more information about this is available at: http://www.earth.nasa.gov.
The ComSci Fellows enjoyed their tour of the Scientific Visualization Studio. Dr. Horace Mitchell, a project manager there, demonstrated some exciting video animations that show changing conditions in Earth and space science and the like. This studio is a rather unique facility with the ability to convert the bytes of information that scientific spacecraft gather into dramatic visual demonstrations for both scientists and the general public.
The tour guides also gave the ComSci Fellows some general background about NASA and Goddard Space Flight Center in particular. More information is available online at: http://www.nasa.gov and http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov. Information about NASA history is available at http://history.nasa.gov.
30th Annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy
(April 21-22, 2005)Dr. Gilbert S. Omenn, Professor of Internal Medicine, Human Genetics, and Public Health at the University of Michigan; and President of AAAS, opened the 30th Annual Forum on Science and Technology Policy and introduced keynote speaker, Dr. John H. Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Dr. Marburger defended United States’ research and development investment and focused his remarks on budgets and the measures of the strength of American science and technology.
The morning’s plenary session followed Dr. Marburger and concerned budget and policy issues for research and development (R&D) in Fiscal Year 2006. Panel members included: Mr. Paul Posner of the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Kei Koizumi of AAAS; Mr. Scott Lilly, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; and Mr. Robert Klein, Chair of the Board, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) was the featured luncheon speaker. During his time, he sketched the vision of the National Science Foundation. NSF’s aim, he said, is to foster the Nation's science and engineering strength to power our economic and social future.
The concurrent afternoon sessions addressed three topics: (1) the future of scientific communication, (2) a systemic view of the science and technology (S&T) workforce, and (3) science and global health disasters. Featured speakers included:
-- Mr. Clifford A. Lynch, Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information
-- Dr. Carol Tenopir, Professor, School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee-Knoxville”
-- Dr. David Stern, Director of Science Libraries and Information Services, Kline Science Library of Yale University
-- Dr. Donald W. King, Research Professor, School of Information Science, University of Pittsburgh
-- Mr. Anthony P. Carnevale, Senior Fellow, National Center on Education and the Economy
-- Mr. William O. Berry, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Science, U.S. Department of Defense
-- Ms. Joan Robinson-Berry, Director, External Affiliation, The Boeing Company
-- Dr. Norine Noonan, Dean, School of Science and Mathematics, College of Charleston; and Member, AAAS Board of Director
-- Ms. Shirley Malcom, Director, Education and Human Resources, AAAS
-- Dr. Henry Masur, Chief, Critical Care Medicine Department, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health; and President-Elect, Infectious Diseases Society of America
-- Dr. Ali Khan, Associate Director for Science, Division of Parasitic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
-- Dr. Charles H. Riemenschneider, Director, Liaison Office for North America, Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations
--Dr. Irina V. Dardynskaia, Research Associate Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago; and Associate Director, Project on International Research and Training in Occupational and Environmental Heath in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus
-- Dr. Jerome Donlon, Acting director, Office of Research and Development Coordination, Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness, U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesThe day ended with the 2005 AAAS William D. Carey Lecture. The annual lectureship recognizes individuals who exemplify the leadership of William D. Carey in articulating public policy issues related to science and technology.
The Honorable Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) told the audience that the diminished influence of science and public policy is posing significant risks to the United States across a range of areas, from energy and the economy to education and the underlying spirit of the Nation.
Friday’s program began with a plenary session on “The Role of R&D in the U.S. and Global Economies,” chaired by F.M. Ross Armbrecht, Executive Director, Delaware Foundation for Science and Mathematics Education. Speakers from the United States, Japan, India, and Iran made presentations considering the centrality of R&D in national innovation systems and the policy responses that are needed. Their presentations also provided insights on how the United States measures up in its strategic use of science and technology capacity, and how other nations use S&T for economic development.
Dr. Peter Cannon, Managing Partner of VRE Company, presented “A View from U.S. Industry.” He pointed out that there is no official United States industrial policy, but various laws and policies are favorable to R&D. Federal funding, private funding, R&D tax credits and other incentives effectively create over $300 billion of funding, an amount that is larger than the total revenue of some countries or United States sectors, such as aerospace. Dr. Cannon emphasized the importance of government partnerships with industry, highlighting the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is currently threatened; the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and the National Science Foundation. He also considered return on investment, and said that revenues resulting from products developed from investments in R&D are very high. Thus, science and technology has a substantial payoff in jobs and economic growth.
Mr. Martin Neil Bailey, Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Economics and former Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (PCEA) gave his “Perspective on U.S. Federal Government Activities.” Mr. Bailey stated that the Clinton Administration recognized the importance of funding science and technology, but the Bush Administration instead relies on tax cuts and deregulation. Clinton’s proposed S&T budgets were typically cut by Congress, except for the budget of the National Institutes of Health, which was often increased because of the benefits of biomedical research to the Nation’s health. Thus, Mr. Bailey suggested that scientists should highlight “Pasteur’s Quadrant” – science that is both basic and applied – in today’s effort to avoid S&T budget cuts. However, he cautioned that scientists should not misrepresent the potential payoffs of research, because that could lead to a perception that science funding “fleeces” the public. Mr. Bailey suggested that four factors have helped the United States remain an economic and industrial leader: the dominance of the United States in high technology; the collapse of the Soviet Union; the relative economic decline of Japan; and the acceleration of United States’ productivity in the mid-1990s. A flexible regulatory climate also fosters innovation in the United States; other countries are far more restrictive. United States’ scientific and technological growth has also benefited from an influx of foreign students, but this source of talent is now threatened by restrictions on immigration. In the future, the United States will be both a source and recipient of technology used by large developing countries such as China and India.
Thereafter, three speakers discussed the role of science and technology in countries at very different stages of scientific and technological development. Dr. Masayuki Kondo, of Yokohama National University, presented a “Comprehensive Review of Japan’s S&T Plans,” which emphasizes four high technology disciplines – nanotechnology, environmental science, life sciences, and materials science. Although Japan’s science and technology is highly developed, its approach is quite different from that in the United States in regard to permanence of researcher employment and laboratory size. The linkages between science and patents are good in the United States, but not as strong in Japan. In addition, United States’ patents are licensed much more frequently than Japanese patents.Dr. Marco DiCapua, Science Counselor (India), U.S. Dept. of State, discussed “India’s Strategic Use of S&T Capabilities.” He emphasized that in the future; the combination of demographics and growing technological capability could make India and China world economic leaders. Although at one time these countries dominated world trade, they fell behind because of a lack of incentives to innovate and improve product quality. Creative people immigrated to the United States, to the detriment of India and the gain of the United States. However, increased competition in the 1990s has helped innovation and product variety. Moreover, India stumbled onto a new production model for intellectual goods that has revolutionized the global economy. In this model, developed countries such as the United States have tapped the vast and inexpensive intellectual talent of countries such as India by outsourcing software development and other technological endeavors. Intercontinental fiber optic cables have fostered the transfer of software and data, and allowed Indian scientists to remain at home. India is also strengthening its capabilities in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and environmental sciences. While an exclusion from patent protection enhanced the development of a generic pharmaceutical industry, India must now comply with World Trade Organization requirements, and provide patent protection for all technologies. Although this will inhibit India’s production of “copycat” pharmaceuticals, it may position India to become a global partner in clinical trials of drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. In sum, technological interactions between the United States and Asia will increase in the future, with uncertain effects on both sides, and the possibility of significant changes in the global economy.
Dr. Hessamaddin Arfaei, of the Iranian Institute for Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, concluded the morning session with a presentation on “The State of Science in Iran and its Development in Recent Years.” Dr. Arfaei noted that private industry has only a minor role in science and technology in Iran. Initially, Iran aimed to train people for government service and management, but now its goal is to increase Iran’s role in scientific research. The largest increase took place after 1995, with a substantial increase in publishing from 2,000 papers a year in 2002 to 3,000 in 2003. Despite this increase, Iran produces only a very small fraction of the world’s science. Before the mid-1980s most of the research was applied research, not basic research. Although the basic research taking place now is comparable in quality to that of other nations, it has not yet had much impact on Iranian society. In “Declaration 2001,” Iran announced its goals of increasing science and technology in areas that would contribute to cultural development, survival, peace, and national security. Iran has increased R&D spending from 0.8 percent of its annual budget in 1978 to the current level of 1.4 percent. Iran hopes to increase its collaborative efforts and S&T budget so that in the future, Iran’s research will contribute to its economy.
The Plenary Session in the afternoon, “Science Versus Society? When Scientific Interests and Public Attitudes Collide,” was moderated by Dr. Albert H. Teich, Director, Science and Policy Programs, AAAS. The theme was issues at the intersection of science and religion.
Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director, National Center on Science Education, spoke on “Evolution vs. Creationism/“Intelligent Design,” and explained how scientists can respond to arguments opposing the teaching of evolution in school. Dr. Scott began by explaining the history of the dispute over the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms, beginning with the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial” in 1925. She also explained more recent cases, including the Supreme Court cases, Arkansas v. Epperson (1968) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). In these cases, the Court struck down certain state laws either prohibiting the teaching of evolution or requiring the teaching of creationism as impermissibly advancing a religious belief in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The dissent in the latter case; however, paved the way for continuing dispute and the repackaging of creationism as “Intelligent Design.” Nonetheless, today’s anti-evolution arguments are not very different from those made by William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial. The three “Pillars” of those arguments are that evolution is a “theory in crisis,” evolution and religion are incompatible, and that it is only “fair” to teach creationism with evolution. Dr. Scott rebutted those arguments, but emphasized that attacks on the teaching of evolution will continue, and that there are many anti-evolution bills before state and other legislatures. Accordingly, she urged scientists to explore these issues further.
Dr. John Gearhart, Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, made a presentation on “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Therapeutic Cloning.” In November 1998, Dr. Gearhart’s research group was one of the first two teams to publish groundbreaking research on the isolation and maintenance of human stem cells in culture, leading to the possibility of using human tissues grown in the laboratory to treat diseased and injured organs. However, even though his research was privately-funded and was not subject to the federal limitations on human embryo research because his stem cells were isolated from fetal tissue, those who oppose stem cell research have attacked Dr. Gearhart and his research. Accordingly, he has become an advocate for stem cell research, spending much of his time in discussions in public forums such as churches. He receives thousands of e-mails daily, primarily from people wanting body parts. Although fulfillment of this age-old dream of replacing worn-out organs is still far in the future, it could become a reality if society invests in the research. However, research in this area has been distorted for political gain. He believes that our pluralistic society should accommodate stem cell research, and is pleased to see the state initiatives to support it. He hopes that federal-funding will be expanded, and that the United States will not lose its international prominence in stem cell research.
Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, Professor and Chair, Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, made a presentation entitled, “When Sentiment and Fear Trump Reason and Reality.” Dr. Krauss cited various statistics indicating that scientific ignorance is pervasive, and many are superstitious. Journalists, who are taught to present two sides to every story, inadvertently abet this state of affairs. In regard to science; however, one side is usually wrong. The scientific community is not well-equipped to counter those who attack it. Moreover, the public is often uncomfortable with the perceived risks of science and is impatient with the pace at which its benefits are realized. In addition, the public often doesn’t like to hear the facts, especially when they are uncertain, e.g., in regard to global warming. Dr. Krauss believes that when fighting scientific ignorance, it is important to avoid offending contrary sensibilities, and to ensure that scientists are perceived as open-minded, honest, and fair. Moreover, religion and science are compatible, and the scientific community should not become estranged from the rest of society. Scientists need to become community activists to open the lines of communication and ensure that the scientific view is not drowned out.
James Scanlon
Executive Staff Director
National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
(April 27, 2005)Topic: HHS Information Quality Guidelines
This presentation was about how the Department of Health and Human Services deals with the information it generates in the pursuit of its mission. This includes information that is generated both within the Department and by contracts let by the Department. Typically this is information related to human health and by its nature it has the potential to cause reactions from producers and consumers of goods and services alike.
Over the years, there have been several rules and regulations that have attempted to control the validity and quality of information; in particular, information that is broadly disseminated to the public. The Data Quality Act of 2001 was mentioned as was the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Data Quality Guidelines of September 2001. There are further regulations at the agency level that are effective since October 1, 2002.
This regulatory program is comparable to an engineered quality control plan, but it is difficult to administer because the information is not as verifiable as most engineering data.
It applies to all substantive information that is disseminated by the agency, with a couple of exceptions. Included are scientific and technical reports, statistics, and authoritative information:
-- Results of scientific assessments and research studies.
-- Statistical and analytic studies and products.
-- Programmatic and regulatory information including program evaluations.
-- Public health surveillance, epidemiological and risk assessment studies and information.
-- Authoritative health and medical information.
Generally excluded is administrative information. Another intriguing exception is peer reviewed scientific work. This exception is interesting because it indicated a continued trust of both the scientific method and the scientific community. Lastly, information can be excepted if a proper disclaimer is added to the dissemination. This allows individual scientists to publish data in a non-peer reviewed environment.
Quality guidelines relate to quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information. Besides the quality of the data itself, the quality of the process by which changes to information are made when mistakes are found is subject to the guidelines.
Finally, the guidelines include reporting requirements to the Office of Management and Budget.
Visit to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Laboratory
Quantico, Virginia
(May 4, 2005)Dr. Joseph DiZinno, Deputy Administrator, gave the ComSci Fellows an overview of the Laboratory and its facilities. Because the facility is an accredited ASCLD, some spaces are off-limits. The FBI processes about 10,000 cases annually, approximately 150,000 items of evidence, and 300,000 exams. Examiners interpret and testify by comparing the known to the unknown. Of the approximately 360 employees, the majority is non-agent scientists; there are about 64 agents in the labs. The Evidence Response Team collects and preserves evidence in the field. Most of the evidence is for FBI cases; however, the FBI provides free of charge exam and testimony for state and local law enforcement cases. The FBI is looking at the business process mapping to make science better, faster, and cheaper. The Research Partnership Program improves and leverages forensic science with joint publishing and peer review. There is a Quality Assurance audit of laboratory work to ensure procedures are followed. State and local governments have access to the forensic databases with state and local fingerprints entered by the local units. Since 9/11, there is more cooperation and sharing of intelligence. The FBI’s number one priority is preventing terrorism, so international testing has increased.
The ComSci Fellows were able to get short glimpses of the work done in several of the case-working units. For example, in the Explosives Unit, the ComSci Fellows learned that much of the work done involved post-blast assistance, where they need to analyze many pieces of possible evidence to aid in piecing together what type of improvised explosives device was employed, and evidence to trace the origin of the pieces. To this end, the Explosives Unit has extensive cooperation with most of the other units in the Laboratory.
Work being done in the Chemistry Unit ranges from more general analyses, such as drug quantification, pharmacy, toxicology, trace evidence (paint analysis) inks/dyes, polymers, and accelerants. For many of these analyses, robotics is used for sample preparation.
Firearms identification is performed in the Ballistics Unit. There is a 5,700 reference firearms collection, which starts with Civil War revolvers and includes automatic weapons. The collection serves as both reference library and parts resource, if a part is needed to obtain a "bullet signature" from a gun. The water recovery tank is used to discharge the ammo and recover it for analysis. The FBI destroys from 600 to 1,000 guns annually and converts them into manhole covers.
The two DNA units, Mitochondrial DNA Unit (DNA Unit II) and Nuclear DNA Unit (DNA Unit I), serve different functions, and the physical state and amount of evidence determines which type of analysis will obtain the most useful data. DNA Unit II usually is involved in cold case work where the evidence is often degraded, and where there are only small samples available and don’t want to contaminate it. This type of DNA provides more general identification, as it indicates familial DNA and not identification specific to a single individual. Family members of missing persons submit their DNA for comparisons to skeletal remains. DNA Unit I, on the other hand, works more with bodily fluid samples, and determines the unique DNA signature. This unit is connected with the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the National DNA Index System (NDIS).
The Trace Evidence Unit deals mostly with hair and fibers comparisons, which are extremely useful, but not as concrete as DNA evidence. This Unit also does work with clothing, rope/cordage, glass, soils, as well as skeletal remain analysis.
The Latent Print Unit deals not only with fingerprint analysis, but also with latent prints in general, which are prints that require some kind of development for visualization. Along with the demonstration of several techniques for print development, it was explained that superglue binds to moisture on fingerprints.
The Questioned Documents Unit deals with strips and cross-cut shreds and sorts by color. This unit performed the typewriter analysis for the Unabomber case.
The Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Unit examines evidence relating to criminal and terrorists organizations. They informed the ComSci Fellows that Julius Caesar is credited with inventing codes and that Thomas Jefferson is the father of American cryptography. The ComSci Fellows heard about the Unit’s success with encrypted codes and messages of the Brian Patrick Regan spy case.
The ComSci Fellows agreed that the tour presented a fascinating look into the range of work done at the Laboratory. One of the more memorable stories included a description and inside story of the "Shoe Bomber."
Dena Puskin
Director, Office for the Advancement of Telehealth
Health Resources and Services Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(May 11, 2005)Topic: Telehealth – Through the Looking Glass
Telehealth is a new paradigm in delivering health care where the patient can be geographically separated from their health care provider, but maintains a virtual link. It can be thought of as a toolbox of technologies applied to diverse health care needs in a wide range of health care settings. It integrates or draws upon many different fields, including consumer health services, information technology, e-business/e-commerce, and many different educational areas. This tries to address some of the major challenges to cost-effective health care in the United States, including difficult access to care in certain geographic and functionally-isolated populations, medical errors, an aging (and less mobile) population exerting a greater demand on the health care system, and shortages of adequate health care providers.
Dr. Dena Puskin described some of the activities undertaken by the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth (OAT). They have awarded over $250 million in grants since 1989, with $34 million in Fiscal Year 2005 alone. Although the majority of the awards are congressionally-mandated projects, there are competitively-selected projects as well, with coverage in 43 states and the District of Columbia. Although OAT accounts for the major fraction of federally-supported telehealth activities, the above statistics undercount the full federal investment. There are many allied projects, not officially classified as telehealth, but with significant relevance such as distance learning, health informatics, consumer health information and mentoring activities. In addition, there are also significant telehealth efforts at the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well. OAT chairs the Joint Working Group on Telemedicine to ensure coordination and promote information sharing among the participating agencies. The clinical services covered by OAT, as well as the other agencies, are quite broad, and include mental health, dermatology, diabetes, cardiology, radiology, nutrition, orthopedics, trauma/ER, surgery and endocrinology. Services rendered typically take two forms: (1) “Store-and-Forward” where the primary provider takes a collection of still images and sends them to a consulting physician for evaluation; and (2) “Home Health” where low-cost equipment is kept at the patient’s home and is used to interactively check vital signs, monitor medications and general patient condition, and visualize the patient.
Despite the convergence of sophisticated information technology, immense pressure to reduce health care costs by the governmental and private sectors, and the growth of e-commerce and the Internet, growth in telehealth has been modest at best. The telehealth community, thus far, has only produced anecdotal evidence to support a business case for further investment, but this has not been enough to convince policymakers and the larger health care industry. Consequently, a recent focus of OAT has been to actively make sure that new projects focus on obtaining rigorous longitudinal data so decision makers have the information they need to objectively evaluate telehealth’s clinical efficacy and cost-benefits. This includes metrics in four key areas: (1) improving access to needed services; (2) reducing rural practitioner isolation; (3) improving health system productivity and efficiency; and (4) improving patient outcomes. These metrics are expected to provide valuable information going forward, but it will still take several more years to refine these metrics and acquire the longitudinal data necessary.
Visit to the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC)
Fort Detrick, Maryland
(May 25, 2005)The ComSci Fellows were welcomed to the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) in Fort Detrick, Maryland by Chief of Staff, Colonel Gina Deutsch, who gave the group an overview of the USAMRMC. The mission of USAMRMC is to enhance the protection of soldiers and leverage technology to protect the war fighter. In this regard, USAMRMC studies environment, psychology and combat care and is the only branch of the military to carry out this type of research and development. The mission encompasses military operational medicine (how to cope with injuries in the battlefield) military infectious diseases (biodefense research, education and training) and congressional programs to define health care problems and develop solutions. The core research programs at USAMRMC are in infectious diseases, military operational medical care, combat casualty and medical chemical and biological research. Overall the personnel at USAMRMC are one-third military, one-third civilian and one-third contract employees.
Mr. Bill Lebherz then spoke to the group about the medicinal, chemical, and biological defense program at Fort Detrick. In 2003, there was a reorganization of the science management and technology transfer divisions to address the required capabilities of the armed forces. This reorganization involved the cooperation between the government, industry and academic institutions. Because of the unique laboratory facilities at Fort Detrick, the USAMRMC carries out the efficacy testing for some of the most dangerous infectious agents and chemicals whereas the pharmaceutical industry has been given the task to developing therapeutical agents/vaccines to combat these agents. These include prophylaxis, pretreatment strategies, nerve agent therapeutics, vesicant agent therapeutics and decontamination devices for medical chemical defense and multivalent vaccines, therapeutic vaccines and alternative delivery methods to combat bioagents.
The third speaker of the morning was Colonel Erik Henchal, a microbiologist and expert in bioterrorism. Colonel Henchal spoke to the group about the studies at USAMRMC to combat bioterrorism. Their mission is to conduct basic and applied research on biological threats resulting in medical solutions (i.e., prophylactic vaccines, therapies and medical diagnostics to protect the war fighter). Colonel Henchal once again emphasized the unique facilities at Fort Detrick and how these facilities have helped the USAMRMC remain at the forefront of this type of research.
In the afternoon, the ComSci Fellows were greeted by Mr. John Winston and Ms. Tony Story, who introduced the group to the Telemedicine and Advance Technology Research Center (TATRC) and gave the group a tour of portable medical facility designed for rapid deployment in the battlefield. The mission of TATRC is to apply technology to predeployment, deployment and post-deployment (e.g., amputees). The TATRC is an entrepreneurial branch of the USAMRMC, which is run very much like a business and has an integrated research team, an integrated product team and a product line review. Part of their funding goes to SBIR and STTR programs which are set aside funds for congressionally-directed research. Some of the products that have been developed through TATRC include the test tube simulator, digital x-ray, medical robotics and retinal imaging. After viewing a brief video describing the TATRC vision of directions for using robotics to improve rescue of soldiers from the battlefield as well as potential victims of chemical or bioterrorist attacks, the ComSci Fellows witnessed first-hand the impressive progress that has been made towards making this vision a reality. Other innovations that have been developed include the electronic information carrier in a soldier’s dog tag, which documents injuries and documents medical care in real time. The day ended with a tour of the makeshift medical hospital and demonstrations of the capabilities of these MASH style units.
Visit to the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Edgewater, Maryland
(June 8, 2005)The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) is one of five Smithsonian Institution research divisions. SERC focuses on basic science with some obvious potential applications. SERC was formally established in 1983 with some of its predecessor organizations dating back to 1929. Approximately 180 people work at SERC in Edgewater, Maryland. Of these people, about 17 are principal investigators. SERC is open to the public during the week and also features two self-guided tours.
After a fun and fascinating canoe trip, the ComSci Fellows were briefed about the Marine Invasions Research Lab by Mr. Whitman Miller. Much of the discussion centered on biological species that are introduced into coastal waters from large ships' ballast water. Large shipping vessels such as those used for containerized shipping take on ballast water when they don't have heavy cargo aboard and release ballast when they do have heavy cargo. While ships are supposed to take on and discharge ballast water on the open seas, often they do this in coastal areas instead, causing ecological problems. Tankers typically discharge ballast water all at once, while container ships dump ballast water more intermittently as containers are offloaded at different ports.
Species such as zebra mussels and kudzu are carried in ballast water and can clog municipal water systems. In addition, certain snails eat other shellfish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, causing economic impacts. Other species can foul water and cause diseases such as cholera in humans and animals that drink this water. If nothing is done to deal with such problems, further homogenization of coastal species is likely.
On-board treatment systems are showing some promise and some possibilities include ultraviolet light treatment, physical filtering systems, and deoxygenation (by pumping in nitrogen).
This Lab is also the home of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse. This central registry of information about ballast discharges enables scientists to understand more about these problems. This clearinghouse is administered jointly with the U.S. Coast Guard and analyzes such trends as how many ships enter the United States, how many carry ballast water, how many discharge it where and so forth. Now there are sizeable daily fines for commercial ships that do not report the required data.
The Lab also looks at hull fouling organisms such as certain kinds of barnacles that cling to the hulls of big ships and have a biological effect on other species. There are special paints to defeat these hull fouling organisms, but they are very toxic and so some researchers would like to find better mechanisms to address this set of issues.
Approximately 32 people work in the Marine Invasions Lab. The Lab has Memoranda of Understanding for formal cooperation with Portland State University and San Francisco State University.
Next, the ComSci Fellows had an interesting presentation from Dr. Wayne Coats of the Protistan Ecology Lab. (Protists are defined as one-celled organisms that have characteristics of both plants and animals, such as algae, yeasts, and protozoans.)
The discussion centered on dinoflagellate algae that cause "red tides." In this host-parasite system where both are dinoflagellates, shellfish are contaminated and cause illness in those who eat them. Dr. Coats explained that his Lab looked at the formation, persistence, and decline of such biological phenomena. He and his colleagues also study viruses.
Overall, scientific studies of such host-parasite systems demonstrate that there is a complex microbial food web (not just the simplistic hierarchical predator-prey food pyramid). Scientists try to target host specificity. They are not introducing new parasitic species, but rather targeting where and when they introduce existing species.
After lunch, Ms. Sharyn Hedrick gave the ComSci Fellows an introduction to the Phytoplankton Lab. Phytoplankton is at the base of the food chain and contributes to the brown color of the Chesapeake Bay (not mud). She has spent several decades sampling the nearby Rhode River and analyzes such things as light absorption and attenuation. Over this time, she has seen construction of buildings near the Bay's edges cause significant ecological damage.
There are seasonal "dead zones" in the Bay in which there is no oxygen in certain areas and thus no life. In winter; however, new cold water typically flows in and increases the oxygen content.
After this Lab, the ComSci Fellows met with Mr. Jess Parker, a forest ecologist at SERC. He led the group on a very informative and engaging walk through the woods. He stressed the human context for forest development. He pointed out many varieties of trees and their characteristics. Dominance is a forest ecology term referring to the fact that a small initial advantage confers large growth advantages later on for trees. He also explained that perhaps contrary to a layperson's intuition, the term old growth forest refers to a forest with old, medium, and young trees and no evidence of a key precipitating event so the overall age of the forest is hard to date.
SERC’s website can be found at: http://www.serc.si.edu. A short history of SERC and be found at: http://www.si.edu/archives/historic/history.htm.
Visit to the National Aquarium
(Baltimore, Maryland)
(June 28, 2005)What do you see when you walk into an aquarium? You see marine life – fish, marine mammals, plants and maybe even reptiles. But do you see ecosystems? That’s what Dr. Glenn Page, Director of Conservation for the National Aquarium in Baltimore, wants you to see when you walk into the Baltimore Aquarium. Dr. Page’s vision for the Aquarium, and as a matter of fact, for the rest of the large, not-for-profit aquariums around the world, is to become a center for inspiration as well as education. That vision is becoming reality as more and more opportunities, through the work of Dr. Page’s group, are created for responsible action by individuals. One such opportunity is the Chesapeake Bay Initiative. The Chesapeake Bay, a unique watershed of 64,000 square miles but extremely shallow, is severely threatened by human activities. The Aquarium’s Chesapeake Bay Initiative involves restoration of wetlands through the planting of beneficial marsh grasses by residents within the wetland communities. These individuals not only plant the grasses, they may have grown them from seeds too. This personal involvement is the impetus of incentive to continue proactive involvement by monitoring the health of the wetland, water quality, and use by birds, fish and other wildlife. Action at the community level helps to ensure consistent and long-term restoration.
The Baltimore Aquarium does inspire visitors with the many informative exhibits that are constructed to present a natural environment for the species highlighted in the exhibit. One of the main attractions is the shark tank that encircles visitors as they wind down ramps from one level to another. The ComSci Fellows were able to view these sand, tiger and nurse sharks from above when they were allowed to go “behind the scenes” on a bridge crossing the open surface of the shark tank. While touring behind the exhibits, the ComSci Fellows were also able to see the tanks where sharks and dolphins are brought for examinations and treatments. The health of the animals is of utmost importance to the Aquarium staff.
While viewing the stingrays gliding and turning through their 265,000-gallon pool with a few sharks and a sea turtle, the ComSci Fellows were able to watch divers carefully feed these animals. Some of the sharks are collected from the ocean, and after a year in the exhibit, they are tagged and released as part of the Cooperative Shark Tagging Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Scientists are also finding that through tagging stingrays in the wild, much is being learned about discrete populations and their migration patterns off of the North and South American coastlines.Visit to the University of Maryland’s Center for Marine Biotechnology
(Baltimore, Maryland)
(June 28, 2005)The ComSci Fellows’ final visit of the fellowship year was made to the University of Maryland’s Biotechnology Institute (UMBI), Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB) in Baltimore, Maryland. COMB has earned international acclaim in its two Programs of Excellence on aquaculture and fisheries biotechnology, and marine microbial biotechnology, and throughout the ComSci Fellows’ visit the reason for such acclaim became clear. Crabs and oysters, once in abundance off of the Maryland and Virginia shores, are now dwindling and endangered. COMB is working towards reversing these trends. As state lawmakers consider the introduction of the Asian oyster into the Chesapeake Bay, COMB scientists are studying potential risks of introducing this non-native species and their potential impact on the health of the Chesapeake Bay. One question being asked is whether the Asian oyster will be able to resist parasites that have decimated the native oyster population when they too will be exposed to the environmental stresses of the Chesapeake Bay. COMB is an optimal lab from which to study non-native species, as they are an isolated “warehouse” eliminating the threat of introduction of the species into the natural habitat prior to a complete and viable assessment.
Blue Crab populations are also in danger along the shores of Maryland and Virginia. A once thriving population is showing signs of stress from over-fished and under-protected estuaries. The Blue Crab Research Program at COMB has demonstrated that Blue Crabs with multi-stage, complex development cycle can hatch and grow in tanks from the larvae, or “zoea” stage through their post-larval “megalops” stage (in which they resemble tiny crayfish or lobster) all the way to juvenile miniature Blue Crabs. In fact, the program has been so successful that COMB has run out of room to stock all of the baby crabs.
Stocking the Chesapeake Bay with hatchery-raised crabs is a beginning to rejuvenating the population of Blue Crabs, but once released, these crabs face an uphill battle in an environment that offers insufficient grasses and plant life to hide from predators when they molt. The greatest predator to a Blue Crab is its brother or sister. Cannibalism is rampant in the crab world and with random molting patterns producing significant availability of crabs with soft shells at any time; there is plenty of opportunity to be eaten. COMB scientists are addressing this issue by trying to determine how to make these brother and sister crabs molt at the same time. Such a phenomenon would significantly increase the probability of survival for each crab.
Extremophiles are microorganisms that thrive under conditions that from a human perspective are clearly extreme like high temperature, pH, pressure and salt concentration to name a few. Each group has unique features that can be exploited to provide biomolecules with a wide variety of applications ranging from manufacturing to medicine. COMB scientists are investigating marine microbes that fall into the category of thermophiles, microorganisms that thrive in high temperatures. They are presently interested in those that live in temperatures above 100oC. The hope is that these microorganisms will produce enzymes that will lead to pharmaceuticals to fight cancer or even produce hydrogen from carbon intake that may someday help to fuel our future hydrogen economy.
Class of 2003-2004
Workshop on Regional, State and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology
(September 30 - October 1, 2003)The Workshop on Regional, State and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology was sponsored by the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and the U.S. Department of Commerce as part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (see www.nano.gov).
Following a welcome by Dr. Mike Roco, Chairman, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET), Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, NNCO, stated that the purpose of the workshop was threefold:
- To provide regions, states and locations with information, models, and networking opportunities to assist them in developing, launching, and nurturing nanotechnology initiatives;
- To provide information on federal programs relevant to such initiatives; and
- To assist NSET/NNCO in collecting and disseminating such information.
Dr. Teague also pointed out that state and regional nanotechnology initiatives allow for accelerated introduction of these technologies into the marketplace, enable regional, state, and local entities to plan and prepare for disruptions produced by transitions involving nanotechnology innovations, and provide fundamental links to federal and international activities in nanotechnologies.
Mr. Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, followed with a keynote speech. He stressed that nanotechnology is a new frontier in science, one in which the United States may not hold its usual front-running position. Mr. Bond commented that it is critical to United States national security to quickly gain leadership in this crucial technology area. He stated that while the U.S. Government is spending $800 million this year on research and development in this field, spending funds is not the only requirement. He said we must concentrate on public education concerning the importance of this technology, facilitate technology transfer and have a global environment based on trade agreements that effectively permit the international transfer of these technologies.
The Honorable Aris Melissaratos, Secretary, Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, then presented an overview of nanotechnology in the State of Maryland. The U.S. Government, he stated, spends $9 billion on research and development in the State of Maryland, mostly in the area of biotechnology. Mr. Melissaratos noted that the future for each state rests on its ability to pursue research, development, and engineering in this new and challenging nanotechnology field, and estimates that in ten years the market for nanotechnology products could reach $400 billion. He then spent a few minutes talking about each of the larger science and technology organizations in Maryland.
Dr. David Sampson, Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, U.S. Department of Commerce, spoke on the importance of maximizing the impact of every grant dollar, while fostering regional innovation and competitiveness in nanotechnology. He said that private industry spends twice as much on technological research and development compared to government, which fuels economic expansion and development, which results in the creation of jobs. Dr. Sampson further pointed out that technology exports accounted for 29 percent of all exports in 2000. He then concluded his presentation by stressing that commitment by local communities is crucial to developing a vibrant nanotechnology infrastructure.
These opening speeches were followed by a series of case studies in several representative states. Ms. Mary Jo Waits, Associate Director, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University presented the case study for Arizona. She explained that Arizona chose clusters having business interdependence, i.e., where businesses relate to each other through the buyer-supplier “food chain,” as competitors, or as partners; that are export oriented, i.e., where many of the companies in the cluster sell products or services to companies outside the region; and where the cluster is an existing or emerging area of specialization such as nanotechnology. She stated that the enduring competitive advantages in a global economy lie increasingly in local things - knowledge, relationships, and motivation – that distant rivals cannot match.
Dr. Jo Anne Feeney, Senior Business Strategist at Albany NanoTech, observed that a new paradigm is emerging for technology commercialization and regional development that merges the strengths of industry with those of government and universities. She stated that Albany NanoTech at the University at Albany – State University of New York – is home to the Center of Excellence in Nanoelectronics. This, she observed, is one of six New York Centers of Excellence, and serves as the main catalyst for industry-university-public collaboration to develop innovations that enable the integrated circuit industry to sustain its historic progress.
Dr. Fraser Stoddard from the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) and the University of California at Los Angeles gave a summary of the characteristics of an effective regional nanoscience initiative – establishing a viable organization devoted to promoting this emerging technology; facilitating transfer of nanotechnology from the academic or governmental research organizations to industry; and encouraging establishment of educational curricula that can result in the best trained and capable research technicians and scientists.
Dr. Warren Ford of Oklahoma State University presented the viewpoint that the coordination of nanotechnology research programs in Oklahoma began in January 2000 when a group of faculty organized the Oklahoma Network for Nanostructured Materials (NanoNet). The NanoNet proposed research on single-wall carbon nanotubes, molecular beam epitaxy routes to semiconductor quantum dots, and solution-grown colloidal particles, and assembly of these building blocks into devices. Dr. Ford pointed out that in May of this year the Oklahoma Legislature passed a resolution creating the Oklahoma Nanotechnology Initiative (ONI) to further business in nanotechnology via cooperation among companies, financiers, academe and government.
Mr. Sean Murdock described AtomWorks, an initiative of the Illinois Coalition, of which he is Executive Director. AtomWorks was formed to foster nanotechnology in Illinois and, more broadly, the Midwest as a world leader in commercializing nanotechnology-enabled innovations. In less than one year, Mr. Murdock noted, AtomWorks has made significant progress in creating the entrepreneurial ecosystem that will be required to secure global leadership. AtomWorks, Mr. Murdock pointed out, has accomplished these activities by focusing on these four key activity platforms: 1) Education/Awareness, 2) Advocacy, 3) Resource Aggregation and Integration, and 4) Community Building.
Dr. Barry Stein, Ben Franklin Technical Partners, followed with an overview of nanotechnology in Southeastern Pennsylvania. He reviewed the formation and mission of the Nanotechnology Institute (NTI), saying that NTI arose from the confluence of three factors:The formal presentations were followed by panel and individual discussions among the participants. Overall the conference accomplished the three goals stated at the beginning of the first day and reiterated here:
- The Federal Government’s National Nanotechnology Initiative, which identified nanotechnology as a principal enabling technology of the early 21st Century, and which provides substantial federal funding to stimulate nanotechnology activity;
- The creation of a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Authority to encourage major university-based research and development initiatives with integral commercialization components; and
- Regional interest and capability in the field as evidenced by the participation of more than 100 company and university representatives in the region’s first NanoForum, organized by the Ben Franklin Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania (BFTP/SEP), at which National Nanotechnology Initiative staff presented the promise and opportunities of nanotechnology.
The second day of the workshop continued presentations on the diverse strategies different regions and states have taken to further initiatives in nanotechnology to support economic growth. Leading off the sessions were talks focused on nanotechnology work force development and education. The first presentation in this session was from Mr. Paul Hallacher, who described the Pennsylvania regional program, NanoManufacturing Technology (NMT) partnership. The NMT partnership has now evolved into a consortium of 31 higher education “partners,” including community colleges, technical colleges, and the state universities, which support programs including a semester of nanotechnology courses at the Penn State Nanofabrication Facility. Continuing the discussion on education in nanotechnology, Mr. Barry Stein with Ben Franklin Technology Partners, described a series of courses, leading to an AA degree in bio(nano)technology. The regional program includes select community colleges in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland.
- To provide regions, states, and localities the opportunities for networking;
- To provide information on federal programs relevant to nanotechnology initiatives; and
- To assist NSET/NNCO in collecting and disseminating information on nanotechnology.
In the discussion period following the presentations, the future of workforce development in nanotechnology was debated. It was agreed that there were uncertainties in how quickly demands for jobs in this area might grow, and exactly how nanotechnology will develop. Currently, micro- and nano-electronics have the biggest demand for new jobs. It was stressed that there doesn’t seem to be a downturn in nanotechnology itself; however, the downturn in the national economy is affecting demand for nanotechnologists, as new hiring is generally down.
The next session covered research infrastructure development. Dr. Tom Picraux, of Arizona State University (ASU) described how investment was made in Arizona’s Nanotechnology programs through a voter initiative, Proposition 301, which was passed in November 2000. This initiative imposed a 0.6 percent sales tax increase for the purpose of enhancing education in Arizona. A portion of this 20-year initiative provides funds for development of infrastructure enhancement at the state universities in support of new jobs in Arizona. At ASU, the investment focuses on biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology, and manufacturing science. The Arizona Biodesign Institute (AzBio) was created in 2002, with a focus on combining training in biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology. Dr. Picraux stressed investment strategies made in the programs, by linking local strengths with regional strengths. The interdisciplinary focus of the program was emphasized, and also the need to build high-impact focus areas and teams for joint use, and to make partnerships with regional government and industry.
Dr. Mike Roco of the National Science Foundation (NSF) then presented a national viewpoint on nanotechnology, describing the NNI Centers with nanotechnology education components, including those around National Laboratories, such as Argonne, Brookhaven, and near the University of California at Berkeley.
The final presentation of the workshop was by Mr. Steve Crosby, editor of the Small Times magazine, on the annual state-by-state ranking by status in small technology. This is a sort of “economic race,” where various statistics are analyzed to compile the rankings. These statistics include venture capital tracking, grant-tracking, and private investment of research in universities toward commercialization, measures of a well-trained work force, and the cost of doing business in an area. The ranking is in the May/June 2003 issue of Small Times and on its website (www.small_times.com), with more information, including graphics.
At the conclusion of the formal sessions, the organizers requested that the audience suggest some preliminary points to aid in drafting the report on the workshop; in other words, what were the key points to take away from the workshop, and what are perceived as the key issues?
Among the suggestions:The Workshop was interesting in that it focused on the process of encouraging development, and not so much on the science of nanotechnology. Many models, both within-state and regional approaches, were presented. There were many innovative approaches, which ranged from how to promote education in the new area of nanotechnology to various economic development plans that would encourage nanotechnology firms to locate to a state or region.
- To develop “one pagers,” or white papers, to educate state and local policy-makers;
- To maintain a sense of regional engagement as a new model of economic development; the need to partner regionally, not just by state;
- To keep in mind that there are great differences in maturity of the different programs at regional/state levels;
- As demonstrated by the presentations at the workshop, the different programs demonstrate similarities in process, but not necessarily the conclusions and strategies;
- Each program will always have to map out a unique “go to market” based on personalities and politics involved;
- The interaction between industry-academia-government is complex, and it would help implementation to build on other successes;
- To attain credibility is important as a tool to establish legitimacy;
- There needs to be more work from the programs to support infrastructure;
- The communication process is very important.
Visit to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
Gaithersburg, Maryland
(October 8, 2003)The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is described as the hidden jewel of all the national laboratories because of its paramount focus on raising the consistent reliability of measurements and standards in the United States of America – a preeminent position it has held for more than 100 years.
Established in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards, NIST today is not only charged with developing measurements and standards, but also with promoting technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life. Even though NIST functions as a non-regulatory agency, its research, measurement tools and technical services are integrated deeply into many of the systems and operations that drive our economy.
NIST laboratories provide technical leadership for vital components of the Nation’s technology infrastructure. NIST remains the steward of the United States measurement system and is known for its achievements in physical measurements, standards developments, test methods, and basic scientific and technical research.
Just prior to the threshold of its second century, NIST was granted an expansion of its duties to include:
- the Advanced Technology Program, to support and enable innovative technologies that otherwise would not be pursued through co-funding of industrial partners in the pursuit of pioneering technical research;
- the Baldrige National Quality Program, to encourage and assist United States’ organizations in their quest for performance excellence and quality improvement efforts, as well as manage the highly acclaimed Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award; and
- the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, to co-fund a nationwide network of nonprofit technical and business assistance centers to help smaller manufacturers identify and implement modern production techniques.
The ComSci Fellows started their exciting and very hectic day of touring with Dr. Arden Bement, the 12th Director of NIST. Dr. Bement gave the group an introductory tour of the visitor center exhibits, followed by a brief overview of the Institute. He started by explaining that NIST is located in the Department of Commerce under the Technology Administration. Counting the scientists, engineers, guest researchers, technicians, support and administrative staff, NIST has approximately 3,000 people working at its two major sites in Gaithersburg, Maryland and Boulder, Colorado. NIST has maintained a relatively stable operating budget of $864 million, which includes income from standard reference materials and other collected fees.
Mr. Marc Stanley, Director of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) followed with a high-energy presentation starting with the statement that the ATP, through its co-funding of powerful new technologies that underlie a broad spectrum of potential applications, has reaped $16 billion dollars worth of advanced technology from the $2.1 billion it has invested in the past 13 years of its existence. The ATP has fostered economic growth by encouraging high-risk, high-payoff industrial research and development. By sharing the cost of these projects, the ATP augments industry’s ability to pursue promising technologies, often accelerating their development for the highly competitive national and international marketplace. Because of the speculative nature of the projects it co-funds, ATP has been susceptible to much controversy and criticism. In spite of the constant need to fight for its budget every year, ATP has managed to co-fund projects from more than 1,000 small and large organizations in areas such as electronics and semiconductors, manufacturing technology, information technology, computing, chemicals, biotechnology and advanced materials.
The next stop of the day took the ComSci Fellows to the NIST Center for Neutron Research where Dr. J. Michael Rowe, the Director, explained to the group how the Center is used yearly in collaborative and individual research by over 1,600 scientists and engineers from industry, academia and the government. The reactor is primarily used to help measure materials at the atomic or molecular level. It is considered a world-class level instrumented laboratory for cold neutron research and has figured prominently in determining specifications for measurement technology.
Maintaining consistency with radiation dosage is a very critical area in measurement technology. Ms. Lisa Karem, Acting Chief, and staff led the ComSci Fellows to the next stop, which took the group to the Quality Assurance in Radiation Measurement Laboratory in the Physics Laboratory. The importance of getting consistent dosage of radiation is just as crucial for medical protocols as it is for irradiation processing of mail. NIST is currently leading a subgroup of the interagency working group on irradiation processing requested by the Homeland Security Office.
The Advanced Metrology Laboratory (AML) is nearing completion and will be a state-of-the-art facility capable of providing research environments not available in any other laboratory in the world. Mr. Jim Bartlett, Quality Assurance Manager in the Plant Division led the ComSci Fellows through various sized lab configurations. They were able to see how the heating and cooling systems throughout one of the main buildings were installed vibration isolated, and sometimes double vibration isolated to maintain environment consistency. When the AML is ready for occupancy in 2004, the 47,480 square-meter (yes, that is completely metric) building will aid NIST and its industry partners to achieve higher quality reference materials, improved measurements and standards, and more rapidly developed research advances.
The ComSci Fellows learned one of the reasons why nanotechnology is big at NIST on our next stop. Mr. John Henry Scott, Physicist in the Surface and Microanalysis Science Division of the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory showed the group that with the use of a powerful analytical electron microscope one can image individual atoms and characterize both natural and engineered nanostructures. Images from this special microscope can also be used to determine atomic-scale defects in materials as well as determine the spatial distribution of chemical elements.
Finally the tour ended with Mr. Kevin McGratten, Mathematician from the Fire Research Division of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory. The ComSci Fellows were shown a special IT model developed to show where sprinklers would be most useful in a room depending on how the room was used. Various applications were configured depending upon the model calculations input. The collapse of New York City's World Trade Center structures following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was the worst building disaster in recorded history, killing some 2,800 people. NIST is taking the lead in conducting a three-part plan to investigate and study the contributing factors, devise a program to provide technical basis for improving codes, standards and practices, and developing a program to provide guidance and better prepare facility owners to respond to future disasters—especially in regards to how long fire marshals have to get people safely away from danger.
Gregory Tassey
Senior Economist
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(October 22, 2003)Topic: Economic Impact of Government R&D Investment
Dr. Gregory Tassey’s presentation, “R&D Investment Trends and the Role of Government,” provided an opportunity to look at research and development (R&D) funding within the Federal Government and how R&D policy impacts the future United States economic climate. Dr. Tassey has spent his career at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) engaged in analyzing the economics of high-tech industries, conducting economic impact studies, and making economic policy assessments for NIST. He has participated in governmentwide and joint industry-government policy development. Dr. Tassey has written three books on the economics of technology policy, published 30 articles in economics policy journals, and recently published Methods for Assessing the Economic Impacts for Government R&D.
Looking at current R&D policy and its influence on funding, Dr. Tassey distinguishes between the amount and composition of R&D investment. Beginning with a set of macro investment and economic impact trends, he uses the life cycle progression of technology to show the evolution of technology policy analysis and policy options, including specific insights into the NIST laboratories’ role of providing technology infrastructure.
The steps in R&D policy analysis, which include review of the causes for underinvestment, estimation of underinvestment, and technology-based inefficiencies, were stated at the national aggregate level. Dr. Tassey’s view is to start with economic policy rationales when determining the scope of technology infrastructure needs and use NIST funding over time as an example of inadequate role development and strategic planning.
In terms of R&D composition, the percentage and type of high-tech industries are what is most important. Dr. Tassey noted that less than 10 percent of today’s economy is considered high-tech (electronics, pharmaceuticals, communication services, software and computer-related services). And two-thirds of America’s R&D is concentrated in the ten states that make up less than half of the United States population.A real problem for policy-makers is not having clear R&D composition indicators to help determine amounts of underinvestment over the technology life cycle. From years of studying government R&D investment, Dr. Tassey developed a conceptual framework to probe for causes of R&D underinvestment. The framework, which he presented, generalizes how the major elements of an industrial technology combine to create value-add (Gross Domestic Product). Dr. Tassey contends that the conventional “black box” model by not explicitly considering these elements fails to give decision-makers the ability to identify policy leverage points. Using his disaggregated model instead, Dr. Tassey pointed to the importance of “infratechnologies” and “generic technologies” for the adaptation of biotechnology’s basic science to commercial products.
Underinvestment in the public good technology elements has been growing steadily as companies shy away from risky technology application investment and government support of programs such as the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) fluctuates on a yearly basis. Bridging the gap to lessen the barrier would support more technology commercialization, but would require a long-term perspective on economic growth.
According to Dr. Tassey’s studies of R&D intensity indicators such as the Industrial Research Institute’s “Sea Change” Index, a steady decline in annual planned investments in generic technology shows a systematic shift under way in the composition of R&D. This indicates a general decrease in longer-term investment. Unfortunately, the indicator does not provide information on specific industries and technologies.
A better understanding of the longer-term structural trends in policy that support R&D’s evolution from basic science to commercialization, instead of short-term business agendas, would help to guide the amount of funding and the composition of R&D investment. Dr. Tassey advises that the use of economic impact assessments can also help influence R&D policy in terms of technology transfer.
Finally, Dr. Tassey shared his substantiated “Wish List” of what R&D funding should look like in the United States based on a national innovation system strategy. He suggested increasing current funding levels from $130 billion to $400 billion, matching the higher rate of investment that occurs in the manufacturing sector. He also cited studies that indicated national R&D should increase by a factor of between two and four. Dr. Tassey noted that Europe’s answer to ATP is now funded at $4.5 billion a year whereas the United States’ counterpart for civilian technology, ATP, has to fight for an annual budget of less than $200 million.
To review the Assessment on Economic Impact of R&D Report, visit: http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report03-1.pdf.
William H. Hooke
Senior Policy Fellow and Director
American Meteorological Society
(October 29, 2003)Topic: Atmospheric Policy: What is it? Why Should I Care?
Dr. William Hooke is the Director of the Atmospheric Policy Program at the American Meteorological Society (AMS). In this position, he is responsible for atmospheric policy development across a wide range of disciplines. His current policy research interests include natural disaster reduction, historical precedents as they illuminate present-day policy, and the nature and implications of changing national requirements for weather and climate science and services.
Dr. Hooke began by indicating that atmospheric policy has been impacted by basic population needs, as well as by population growth. In addition, policy has been influenced by the increase in resource consumption and by advancements in technology. These advancements have been far-reaching, including those in computation, biotechnology, and transportation. Other basic considerations in the development of policy have concerned assumptions that we have lived by for years: 1) the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere is infinite, 2) the climate is unchanging, and 3) that weather is unpredictable. As it has been realized over the years, these assumptions were erroneous. Instead, it was the changes in our understanding of these phenomena that motivated the development and evolution of current atmospheric policy.
Dr. Hooke then examined each of the agencies represented by the ComSci Fellows, describing specific policies associated with each. These policies and programs ranged from plume modeling and atmospheric dispersion, relevant to homeland security concerns, to air quality, which pertains to the health concerns related to respiratory ailments.
Dr. Hooke then explored the grand challenges in atmospheric policy, which he articulated as:
- global observations,
- international data sharing (e.g., the Global Earth Observation System),
- public/private/academic roles, and
- education and training.
Following an enumeration of these challenges, a discussion ensued, which included all aspects of Dr. Hooke’s previous points. Topics that were discussed included marketing with respect to the global environment and the value of weather, the formation of policy and the techniques to move it forward, the role of public opinion in swaying policy, using common sense when enacting regulations, and the Global Earth Observation System effort.
Mark Boroush
Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Technology Policy
Technology Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
(November 5, 2003)Topic: The Department of Commerce’s Role in Technology Transfer
The Department of Commerce and, specifically, the Technology Administration (TA) play a significant role in developing the Nation’s policy of technology transfer and reporting the results. Mr. Mark Boroush, an economist with extensive experience in science and technology policy, delivered a comprehensive presentation on this role, tracing its legislative history and progress.
Technology transfer refers to the process by which science is commercialized. Mr. Boroush described the federal effort as harvesting high-risk research funded by taxpayer dollars. It can take the form of:
- Cooperative R&D agreements (CRADAs),
- Invention disclosure and patenting,
- Licensing of inventions and other intellectual property, and
- Other means of knowledge dissemination, such as publishing research results in peer-reviewed journals and participating in standard-setting activities.
The last two decades have seen substantial legislative activity as a result of a huge concern over the ability of the United States to compete globally. While the United States was unmatched in basic science, it was losing the game of transferring technology into commercially viable products. Adequate infrastructure was not in place.
Seeking to bolster the commercialization of federal research, Congress enacted the Technology Innovation Act of 1980, referred to as the Stevenson-Wydler Act, and the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, known as the Bayh-Dole Act. The Stevenson-Wydler Act established the “Office of Research and Technology Applications” at the laboratory level. A 1986 amendment called for the Department of Commerce to prepare reports on federal technology transfer activities, the biennial report series.
The Bayh-Dole Act granted patent and licensing rights to universities and small businesses, along with federal agencies, for their inventions. In 1984, an amendment to the Act gave new oversight authority to the Secretary of Commerce, which included developing guidelines and techniques to help agencies in their technology transfer efforts.
Recent legislation has added new reporting requirements. In the spirit of “management for results,” substantive annual performance reporting requirements were mandated by the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000. The ten major federal agencies with significant laboratory operations (Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, EPA, Health and Human Services, Interior, NASA, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs) are required to include a report on technology transfer accomplishments and plans in their annual budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget. Under its reporting mandate, the Department of Commerce provides its assessment in a summary report to the President and Congress based on the agency submissions, which can be seen at: http://www.ta.doc.gov/Reports.htm.As part of its policy-making role, TA chairs the Interagency Working Group on Technology Transfer, which consists of representatives from major agencies with sizable science and technology operations. This group, which holds monthly open meetings at Commerce, has played a significant role in shaping policy. TA also works with other influential organizations, such as the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST at http://www.ostp.gov) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Mr. Boroush cited the Federal Laboratory Consortium as another good source of information (http://www.federallabs.org).
According to Mr. Boroush, the United States has recovered significantly in its ability to compete globally because of its technology transfer and intellectual property policies. Yet, other nations are not standing still. Mr. Boroush sees publicly-funded research as increasingly important to United States economic competitiveness. Performance reporting and improved metrics on technology transfer, which include statistics on patents and licenses and analysis of downstream outcomes in terms of effects on the commercial entity, the economy and the laboratory, are allowing a clearer assessment of the technology transfer process and the public/private partnership. Policy-makers will continue to work to make the process more efficient and productive, seeking balances such as that between the open nature of scientific discovery and the protection of intellectual property rights.
Workshop on Converging Technologies, Emerging Challenges: Societal, Ethical and Legal Issues at the Intersections of Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science
(November 6, 2003)This special seminar, which was attended by the ComSci Fellows, was hosted by the Technology Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Mr. Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, introduced the overall topic of nanotechnology and then turned the floor over to Ms. Sonja Miller, Founder of Converging Technologies Bar Association. Ms. Miller briefly reviewed the field of converging technologies by pointing out that this area is composed of four major branches of science: 1) nanoscience and nanotechnology; 2) biotechnology and biomedicine, including genetic engineering; 3) information technology, including advanced computing and communications; and 4) cognitive science – the convergence of psychology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, economics, sociology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. In these technologies, she pointed out, the next Renaissance will be convergence – the merging of distinct technologies or industries into a unified whole. Scientific leaders across disciplines, industry experts, and policy-makers envision that unification of science and technology will achieve vast improvement in our physical, mental, and social capabilities and well-being, as well as in enhancing our quality of life, upgrading our educational systems, and increasing our Nation’s security and economic clout.
Ms. Miller continued by summarizing the societal, environmental, ethical, and legal issues for the aforementioned four technologies. Nanotechnology, she pointed out, has already caused concern in the government where $50 million has been allocated for studies addressing the environmental implications and remediation of such technology. In the realm of nanobiotechnology, the question of who has access to, owns, controls, monitors, and stores your genomic-phenomic profile will have to be determined. She added, can a prospective employer or insurance company discriminate against you because your genetic profile reflects a propensity for a certain disease or addiction? Moving to information technology, Ms. Miller posed the following questions: will the gap separating the information haves and have-nots be closed or further widened by nanotechnology; and will we have lost our sense of privacy forever, or will the meaning of privacy change to parallel the leaps in scientific advancement? Finally, she addressed cognitive science by asking the question: what is the morality of using genomics, molecular imaging, and pharmaceuticals based on nanotechnology, to affect the human brain? The future may well see converging technologies producing direct interfaces between the human brain and machines, thereby transforming the workplace environment, sports and communication between peoples.
She summarized by saying that we have entered the Age of Transition. The unification of science, she continued, from the nanoscale has brought with it the identification of new ethical areas: nanoethics, bioethics, infoethics, and neuroethics. She concluded by saying that convergence of these technologies will accelerate our understanding of who we are and what our capabilities may be. Strategies for effective transformation must be developed across all disciplines and sectors of society. By forming unique and novel collaborations and partnerships, together, we ensure that science and technology will be developed for the benefit of mankind.
Richard G. Newell
Fellow
Resources for the Future
(November 19, 2003)Topic: How Economists View Technological Change and Technology Policy in the Energy Area
Energy policy, technological change, and global climate change converge at the leading edge of today’s environmental policy debates. In order to help the ComSci Fellows attempt to disentangle and think clearly about these issues, and understand the role of public policy in this debate, Dr. Richard Newell provided an economist’s perspective on energy and technological change. Dr. Newell is a fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF), a leading policy institute dedicated to providing objective economic analyses of environmental and resource issues.
The core issue of energy policy is how to provide as much energy as possible at an affordable price, while minimizing the deleterious aspects, or by-products, of energy production. Dr. Newell described a central question of economic analyses concerning both energy policy and technical change: what are the incentives to engage in either one of them? Earlier in the year, the ComSci Fellows heard from Dr. Gregory Tassey of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who talked about the role of technology research and development (R&D) in economic growth. Dr. Newell pointed out that adoption may be a question very different from technology development. Especially with respect to energy technology, one may not be able to build it and they will buy it (re-phrasing a well-worn adage). This is particularly true when an environmental technology may be costly and intended to remove or reduce production of an unmarketable product, such as pollution or greenhouse gases.
Dr. Jeffrey Leonard, in another ComSci seminar, pointed out cases where profit-increasing investments in environmental technology facilitate adoption. Dr. Newell posed the question, however, of what governments can or should do when the gains from energy technology may not improve the bottom line. He introduced the concept of market failure – where private markets fail to create demand (or supply) for commodities or technologies that might be socially desirable.
If low-emission energy production is something that would benefit society, Dr. Newell suggested several reasons why markets for such technology may fail to develop. If energy users do not pay the full cost of pollution originating from energy production, such as health or ecological costs, then energy producers may have little incentive to invest in low-emission technologies. If the benefits of a new technology are widely disseminated, then there may be underinvestment in R&D – the so-called intellectual property problem. Even when technology exists, adoption may be slow because potential users may want to see how it performs before investing in the infrastructure (supply, distribution, support industries) necessary to promote adoption.
Dr. Newell described two areas where government policies can ameliorate market failures in clean energy markets – support for technology R&D and support for technology adoption. Direct research investments are a key government mechanism to support technological development. Because industry R&D investments track very closely with energy prices, government investment during periods of low energy prices can facilitate continual innovation. Directed research may be used to promote specific directions of new knowledge, but questions do remain as to who “owns” new knowledge and whether market incentives will exist to bring new developments to market.
Adoption policies are another area where public involvement has been active in the past. Tax credits can provide incentives for both producers and consumers of energy. Credits on production technologies can lower the cost of energy production using low-emission technologies. Credits for energy efficient machinery can equalize the cost to energy users of reducing energy costs through purchases of new machinery. A portfolio system for energy production, which defines a proportion of production that producers must meet, using low-emission technologies, may provide producers with the incentives to find maximum efficiency through trading of emission permits.
The real challenge facing those involved in energy policy, according to Dr. Newell, is in recognizing that a tension exists between technology policies and behavioral policies in achieving energy goals. Government policy-makers need to understand that technological possibility may not align with economic feasibility and that the most effective lever of policy may be to find ways to solve market failures.
The website for RFF is http://www.rff.org.
Visit to Western Maryland and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Coal and Power Topics
(December 10-11, 2003)The ComSci Fellows were very fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in a program designed to inform them on various aspects of coal and other power topics (excluding nuclear topics). The program included not only a visit to a coal-fired power plant, but also the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and a pilot facility for fuel cells.
The first stop was at the AES Warrior Run coal-fired power plant in Cumberland, Maryland. The AES staff provided an overview of the unique capabilities of their facilities, which was then followed by a tour.
Warrior Run is a relatively small power plant, producing up to 180 MW of electricity. The plant went operational in February 2000, as a part of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) power grid. The primary fuels are coal and limestone, which feed a Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB), a fairly new design that helps reduce NOx and sulfur emissions. Beverage-grade CO2 gas is co-generated from the steam of the power plant and is sold commercially. The plant is co-located with a CO2 processing facility, thus simplifying the delivery process. Another by-product – flue ash – is used for mine filling and road construction. The limestone in the flue ash makes it desirable for mine filling by reducing the acidity of the ground water around the coal mining sites.
The plant burns approximately 650,000 tons of coal per year, all from nearby mining sites in Maryland, and uses 120,000 tons of limestone. Besides electricity, the plant produces approximately 45,000 tons of CO2 gas. The unique mixture of limestone and coal in the generation process helps reduce harmful emissions of NOx, and SO2, and aids the extraction of food-grade carbon dioxide.
A question to the AES Warrior Run staff on the benefits of the clean coal technology of the CFB resulted in an answer with information on emissions. The NOx numbers directly after combustion and prior to further screening techniques are typically 0.15 lb/mm BTU, which are already beneath the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limit of 0.16 lb/mm BTU. By applying a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) using Anhydrous NH3, the NOx number is reduced further to 0.10 lb/mm BTU. This makes the plant below EPA New Source Performance Standards and considerably below typical coal-fired power plants in operation today.
To review more on the Warrior Run Power Plant visit:
http://www.aes.com/businesses/business.asp?projectID=7.The second stop on the tour was at the Siemens Westinghouse Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Laboratory is a pilot manufacturing facility for fuel cell development. Fuel cells are comparable to battery power in their applications and mobility. However, while batteries operate on stored energy, fuel cells run on chemical reactions, which create their own energy. The chemical reaction is turned directly into electricity and heat. Hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO) are the most commonly used fuel sources. Although there is a variety of fuel cell power sources and designs in use in the field, Siemens Westinghouse is focusing its efforts on the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) in a tubular design (rods). The SOFCs offer a vast improvement over combustion engines with regard to fuel efficiency (50 percent efficiency versus 30 percent), waste products (environmentally-friendly water and heat instead of greenhouse gases), and an increased longevity of power over batteries. In addition, SOFCs provide low noise operation and are air-cooled, so no water is needed. If coupled with a gas turbine, a hybrid capability could increase the energy efficiency of fuel consumption up to 60 percent.
Siemens Westinghouse initially sees this technology as a player in the stationary back-up power market until costs can be decreased. Also, once the fuel cell size can be reduced in addition to a decrease in cost, the company may be able to replace batteries with fuel cells in mobile applications, such as in cellular phones. Currently, a 250 kW prototype fuel cell generator is about the size of a tractor-trailer.
It is felt that the markets that can be currently targeted by the SOFC are stationary applications, including hospitals, office buildings, and utilities, which use in the range of 5 kW – 250 kW. These would include portable power of < 1 kW (e.g. military uses), residential power of 1 kW – 10 kW, and remote applications in the range of 1kW – 50 kW. The first commercially-available generator will be the CHP-125, a 125 kW, with an electricity efficiency of 47 percent, which is planned for delivery in late 2006 to early 2007. Future plans include the development of hybrid systems.
Following the presentation, a tour of the laboratory facilities took place, where one of only two hybrid SOFC generators in existence was viewed.
To learn more about Siemens Westinghouse fuel cell development visit: http://www.pg.siemens.com/en/fuelcells.
On day two of the ComSci Fellows’ visit to Pittsburgh, they found themselves visiting the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) for a series of presentations. These lectures ranged from the overall view of America’s energy picture to how NETL measures and analyzes particulate matter relating to human health issues.
The morning lectures started off with two very informative presentations given by Mr. James Ekmann, Associate Director, Office of Systems and Policy Support, entitled, “America’s Energy Picture” and “NETL Overview.” Mr. Ekmann first gave the group a big picture look at America’s growing energy issues by showing how energy profoundly impacts our quality of life, the economy and the environment. The statistics he revealed showed that the world’s demand for energy is ever increasing, especially in the use of fossil fuels. Current projections show that fossil fuels will continue to be dominant until at least 2030, which means carbon emissions from these fuels will continue to rise. Many scientists, educators and politicians believe CO2 emissions from various energy sources are a major contributor to the global warming potential. Besides discussing processes such as sequestering carbon and developing technologies (e.g., fuel cells) to efficiently produce, distribute and store hydrogen for future energy needs, Mr. Ekmann provided an overview of our Nation’s energy infrastructure and presented what NETL’s key role will be in monitoring and protecting this infrastructure. Challenges to energy assurance in the United States are vast, requiring diligence and perseverance to ensure that our Nation is not susceptible to terrorist attack or cascading system failures.
Mr. Ekmann’s second talk focused on the mission and program outcomes of NETL. NETL is one of the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 17 national labs, which has an annual budget of approximately $740 million and implements a science and technology development program to resolve the environment, supply and reliability constraints of producing and using fossil resources. It has a technology transfer emphasis, conducting business with 43 foreign countries and throughout the United States. NETL also has a focus on education, which includes community initiatives and over 200 extramural research projects with academic institutions. Outcomes from NETL’s programs assist our Nation in the following areas: technology, policy, competitiveness, stability, work force and region. For example, in the areas of technology and workforce, NETL assists in providing acceptable, affordable, and available energy to the United States in mid- to long-term timeframes, as well as providing a trained energy work force through university research programs. Further information on NETL can be found at: www.netl.doe.gov.
The third presentation was given by Dr. Richard P. Noceti, Director, Fuels and Process Chemistry Division, on “Computational Energy Research at NETL.” Dr. Noceti explained computational approaches that help experimental research to address energy production, storage, distribution, conservation and security. Computational energy research focuses mostly on the interaction of atoms at the nano-scale level. The goals of computational energy science are to develop science-based computational tools and apply them to stimulate clean, highly effective energy plants of the future, as well as developing virtual simulation capabilities. The development of such capabilities provides NETL a prediction tool for interactions of turbines, fuel cells, combustors, environmental control systems and other major components. This virtual simulation concept can also predict dynamic responses of an entire energy plant.
The last four lectures focused on particular areas that have a direct influence on America’s total energy picture. Mr. Terry E. Ackman, Water and Energy Team Leader, Environmental Science and Technology Division, spoke on the “Water and Energy Interface.” Mr. Ackman made it very clear that water and energy are closely linked. It is recognized that water is vital for all forms of energy production, and that there is a need to ensure that energy requirements are met in a sustainable manner. The growing demand for fresh water in commercial, industrial and public sectors is staggering. Power plants are the second largest users of fresh water in the United States, requiring 132 billion gallons per day. Another water and energy interface with a major effect on freshwater supplies in the United States is underground coal production by various mining methods. The possibility of contaminated ground and surface water mixing with rivers and streams is a very real problem.
Mr. Robert Warzinski with the Environmental Science and Technology Division in the Office of Science and Technology spoke about the processes needed for safe, cost-effective and verifiable carbon sequestration. The principal focus of this type of research is the capture and permanent storage of CO2, as well as other toxic emissions. Coal seam, brine and ocean sequestration and the core facilities to study and refine the necessary capture and storage techniques are being developed to address this important issue. Though there are still significant barriers facing scientists in the capture, separation and sequestration of CO2, the Unique Modular CO2 Capture Facility, the Geological Sequestration Core Flow Lab and NETL’s High-Pressure Water Tunnel Facility are leading the way in establishing trained scientists and engineers in sequestration research.
The talk from Mr. Evan Granite with the Clean Air Technology Division in the Office of Science and Technology was entitled, “GP-254 Process for Photochemical Removal of Mercury from Flue Gas.” He is involved in a $14 million external and in-house mercury research program at NETL. This program is the largest in the United States and its major goal is to develop more effective mercury control options in anticipation of future regulations. Mr. Granite explained that mercury is difficult to capture and measure and the present benchmark technology has some application deficiencies. One type of application that does show more promise in measuring elemental mercury in the environment is a photochemical oxidization process.
The final lecture by Mr. Donald Martello, also with the Clean Air Technology Division, was on “Ambient Air Sampling and Analysis,” and focused on coal power and PM2.5 (particulate monitoring at 2.5 microns and lower). Power plant emissions probably contribute significantly to secondary PM2.5 mass and the effect of those emissions on human health is not well-known. The program objective is to provide high-quality scientific data and analysis for use in policy and regulatory determinations. In other words, they are attempting to identify knowledge gaps between ambient air measurements and personal exposure. The FY 2004 work plan objective is to continue comprehensive ambient air monitoring at NETL with specialized monitors and to submit monitoring and characterization data to scientific databases.
Ari Patrinos
Associate Director of Science for Biological and Environmental Research
U.S. Department of Energy
(December 17, 2003)Topic: Public Support for Gene Research and Biotechnology: Public/Private Partnerships and the Ethics of Genetic Research
While many people are familiar with the recent Herculean effort to sequence the human genome, few people are probably aware that the federal program to understand the human genetic code originated from concern about the effects of ionizing radiation on humans. The link between radiation and human biology is based on observations that genes are the mechanism through which radiation effects are expressed. As Dr. Ari Patrinos describes it, these basic concerns and observations were the basis for what is now an extremely diverse exploration of the frontiers of biology. As the Associate Director for Biological and Environmental Research in the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Dr. Patrinos oversees a wide research agenda at the Department of Energy (DOE), one which combines elements of the biological, physical, and computational sciences.
As part of his management portfolio, Dr. Patrinos is also Director of the DOE component of the U.S. Human Genome Project. He provided the ComSci Fellows with an in-depth view of this aspect of his office’s research, relating both its history and its future direction. He also provided some evocative lay facts about DNA – it is a molecule six feet long when unraveled; all the DNA from a single persons cells, when placed end-to-end, would reach to the moon and back three times; typing out the sequence of the base pairs (pair of amino acids making up DNA) using just a single letter, A, T, G, or C to represent a pair, would fill three New York City telephone books for a single person’s DNA.
By the 1980s, some science policy-makers came to the conclusion that, in order to really understand genetic phenomena, a complete sequence of the human genome would be necessary. This was not uncontroversial because some scientists believe that sequencing the three billion base pairs of DNA making up the human genome would be wasteful, given that genes are made up of small sets of base-pair DNA sequences and much of the complete genome is thought to be “junk” DNA. Additionally, there was concern that a project of this scale would take on an industrial appearance to research and crowd out research in other programs. Moreover, the science philosophy behind the human genome project departed from traditional approaches in biological research, which is based on formulating hypotheses and then testing them with data. In very broad terms, some saw the effort to sequence the human genome as a massive effort to collect data that would then be used to generate hypotheses.
In spite of these controversies, Congress appropriated funds to support the Human Genome Project, which was launched in 1990 and expected to take 15 years and $3 billion to complete. At the time, sequencing technology was crude, compared to today’s technology, and sequencing large amounts of DNA cost approximately $1 per base pair (today, the cost is one-tenth of one cent per base pair). After an initial period of developing sequencing techniques in a large number of laboratories, the program focused on the most promising techniques and concentrated the sequencing effort in three United States laboratories.
Dr. Patrinos shared some insight into the relationship between the public program run by DOE and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a private venture to sequence the human genome organized by Celera. The public/private partnership generated some controversy over where public information ended and private intellectual property began. Many in the public sector were concerned about a for-profit company being able to control information about human gene sequences (both access and timing of access), even if the information was free to researchers but on a subscription basis for other life-sciences companies. These controversies have not yet been resolved.
Similarly, there are a number of other social, legal and ethical implications of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Jim Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, was the first director of the project in DOE and was quick to realize that scholarly research was needed on these social issues, and NIH and DOE spent three to five percent of the research budget to address these questions. Given the degree to which genetic sciences are poised to affect modern society, there is a great need to educate those public policy experts on the science involved. Dr. Patrinos has funded and attended many week-long workshops to educate judges on biotechnology. He has also provided educational programs for legislators responsible for drafting legislation regarding genetic information to assure that they have an understanding of modern molecular genetics.
Although the Human Genome Project may be the most visible, the Office of Biological and Environment Research has four areas of research. The life sciences program includes the Human Genome Project, but also includes research on structural biology, low dose radiation, and genomes to life, which develops novel research and computational tools to understand and predict the behavior of complex biological systems. The climate change program started its carbon dioxide research work in 1977, and now engages in climate modeling, atmospheric radiation measurement, carbon and ecosystem research, and integrated assessments to develop and evaluate environmental and economic costs/benefits of options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The environmental remediation program develops strategies for bioremediation of metal and radionuclides at DOE sites and explores computational methods for modeling molecular and environmental processes. Lastly, the medical sciences program is at the forefront of nuclear medicine, including radiotracers, imaging techniques and advanced imaging instrumentation.
Further information can be found at: http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/hug_top.html.
Lawrence H. Landweber
Senior Advisor
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering
National Science Foundation
(January 7, 2004)Topic: Cyberinfrastructure: Revolutionizing Science and Engineering
Dr. Lawrence H. Landweber is a Senior Advisor to the Assistant Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), as well as Research Professor and Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at the University of Wisconsin. Since 1977, he has been involved in many important developments in the evolution of computer networks. In 1979, Dr. Landweber chaired CSNET, the Computer Science Network, which served as a validation of the Internet concept. He subsequently led the University of Wisconsin’s participation in the NSF-Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Gigabit Testbed project.
Dr. Landweber’s presentation focused on the emergence of cyberinfrastructure – an integrated system of computation/communication/information that supports a range of applications – and the role played by NSF, in facilitating the development of computing network and infrastructure. In the 1960s, NSF provided early support of campus computing and, in the 1970s supported advanced scientific computing research. By the early 1980s, NSF had begun to support cross-country networks, such as CSNET. The 1980s also saw the beginning of the NSF supercomputer initiative and the birth of NSFNET. In the early to mid-1990s, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, an NSF partnership at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, released the MOSAIC web browser, and in 1995, the Internet was privatized. NSF has recently funded the Extensible Terascale Facility and the National Middleware Initiative.
Information is being collected at a rate that is challenging our ability to store and analyze it. There are an increasing number of scientific data collection efforts that have current archive sizes measured in petabytes (a petabyte is 1015 bytes or about one-half of the combined contents of the Library of Congress). The ability to acquire huge volumes of data poses exceptional challenges regarding storage, analysis and transmission. Dr. Landweber mentioned that cyberinfrastucture is in its infancy and is a key emergent technology.
The development of grid computing is expected to meet the future cyberinfrastructure needs. Large clusters of computers, as many as 1,000, are interconnected and computing jobs are executed by components of the cluster according to scheduling agents. An extension of this concept is distributed computing in which large computing tasks are broken into discrete units that are independently computed and then recombined upon completion. Commercial grids using distributed computing are emerging, providing vast resources to users who may not otherwise have access to this level of resources.
Future cyberinfrastructure faces many challenges, including the need to transmit hundreds of terabits (1012) per second in network backbones and bring online hundreds of petaflops (1018 floating point operations per second). Storage technology will have to be developed to facilitate exabyte (1018 byte) collections. There will also be the need to integrate and process data from millions of sensors.
In addition to government-funded efforts, universities and corporations have been partnering to address cyberinfrastructure needs. In closing, Dr. Landweber discussed the National Lambda Rail (NRL) project, which he views as an especially important and innovative example of a university-corporate partnership. The NRL project is a dedicated network of fiber optic lines spanning the country, with the goal of providing ultra-high capacity and high-speed links between selected major research centers. The United States has fiber optic capacity in excess of what is needed commercially. This vast capacity will enable researchers at member institutions to share data and computing resources across institutions, in addition to conducting research on new networking technologies.
The NSF website is: http://www.nsf.gov.
Gary Smith
International Advisor to the Turkish Patent Institute and Consultant on International Patent Issues
World Intellectual Property Organization
(January 14, 2004)Topic: International Intellectual Property Issues and WIPO
With an extensive career in intellectual property, Mr. Gary Smith provided an overview of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and related issues. From 1995 until 2002, Mr. Smith had served as the Director of the Patent Cooperation Treaty at WIPO. Prior to joining WIPO, he had had a distinguished 25-year career with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Mr. Smith began his talk with a short primer on intellectual property, which consists of patents, trademarks, industrial designs and copyrights. As he explained, protection of intellectual property provides economic and legal incentives to share works of creativity with the public. To be considered for a patent, the invention must be “new, useful and not obvious,” which means that it must be sufficiently different. The idea of international cooperation in the area of intellectual property protection came about with the growth of trade at the end of the 19th Century.
Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO was established in 1967 and became a specialized agency of the United Nations in 1974, with its own director general. Its membership currently stands at 179 countries, which pay dues based on ability. WIPO works toward establishing substantive normalization by negotiating and administering treaties and providing legal and technical assistance to developing countries.
Considered by Mr. Smith as the most successful of the WIPO treaties, the Patent Cooperation Treaty allows applicants to start a filing process for a number of countries. There is no such thing as a “world patent.” Applicants then have to go to each country to have a patent come into force. For the United States, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office handles the administrative functions for patents, trademarks and industrial designs, while the Library of Congress handles copyright. The protection of intellectual property in this country can be traced back to the Constitution, with Thomas Jefferson as the first Commissioner of Patents.
Mr. Smith wrapped up his presentation with a look at some of the major issues on the table at WIPO, such as whether and how patent protection could be extended to genetic resources, traditional knowledge or folklore. WIPO has also been involved with Internet domain name dispute resolution.
More information on WIPO can be found at http://www.wipo.int. The website for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is http://www.uspto.gov.
Andrew W. Reynolds
Deputy and Chief of Staff to the Science and Technology
Adviser to the Secretary of State
U. S. Department of State
(January 14, 2004)Topic: Science and Technology in 21st Century Foreign Policy
Mr. Andrew W. Reynolds is currently Deputy and Chief of Staff to the Science and Technology Adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State. Mr. Reynolds joined the State Department in 1990 as Deputy Director in the Office of Science and Technology Cooperation, where he worked extensively in Europe, Russia, the former Soviet Republics, India, Indonesia and Japan to facilitate bilateral and multilateral cooperation in science and technology (S&T). He has also served in the capacity of a counselor for basic S&T research, technology policy, export controls, intellectual property rights protection, economic analysis, health and sustainable development issues. From 1986-1990, Mr. Reynolds was Deputy Director in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of International S&T Cooperation, where he worked on the United States/Soviet agreement on peaceful uses of atomic energy to facilitate joint research in high-energy physics, controlled thermonuclear fusion, nuclear reactor safety, environmental restoration and waste management. He has also worked in private industry on energy and public health issues.
Mr. Reynolds began the presentation by stating that S&T are the drivers for economic development and are ubiquitous in the functioning of the modern world and the framing and execution of domestic policies and international relations. S&T - the engines of the modern industrial economies - are seminal to international cooperation, and are the three pillars of national security—intelligence, diplomacy and military readiness. Mr. Reynolds commented on the pervasive role of science, technology and health in foreign policy as imperatives for the Department of State. Science-based issues are increasingly prominent in the foreign affairs agenda, from nonproliferation and arms control to global environmental threats, such as ozone layer depletion and global climate change, HIV/AIDS, and international S&T cooperative agreements.
In 2000, the Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, established the position of S&T Adviser to serve as the State Department’s principal liaison with national and international scientific communities. Dr. George Atkinson is the second Science Adviser to the Secretary of State. The office of Science and Technology Adviser to State (STAS) is operating under the Bureau of the Undersecretary for Global Affairs. STAS has been successful in implementing a departmentwide initiative, “Science and Diplomacy: Strengthening State for the 21st Century,” to integrate science, technology and health issues into foreign policy and to strengthen ties with S&T communities inside and outside the government. The responsibilities of STAS are to promote more effective integration of sound scientific and technical information and scientifically literate personnel into the United States foreign policy process, to develop more effective foreign policy for United States S&T that will permit the United States to draw on and benefit from S&T strengths and resources available abroad, and to enhance utilization of the potential of United States S&T cooperation with other countries to strengthen overall relations with those countries and to address common problems of global concern.
In keeping with these responsibilities, the strategies for achieving the broad objectives of the Science and Diplomacy Initiative are to ensure that sufficient and sustainable capacity exists to address science, technology, and health issues in foreign policy by increasing the number of scientists in the Department and by providing more training and exposure to S&T issues, and outreach to the scientific community by building partnerships with the outside S&T community in the United States and abroad. Since 2001, the number of Science and Diplomacy Fellows in the Department has tripled. Forty Fellows are now working in twelve Bureaus in the Department and at several missions abroad.
Mr. Reynolds mentioned various education initiatives at the State Department, including student internships and scholarships as well as fellowship programs such as Fulbright Scholars, Jefferson Science Fellows (JSF) and others for scientists and engineers, that are designed to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and people of other countries by providing opportunities to study and teach in each other's country, exchange ideas, and develop joint solutions to address shared concerns. He mentioned the establishment of the JSF program as a three-year pilot program for tenured professors at United States degree granting academic institutions to spend one year at the U.S. Department of State for an on-site assignment in Washington, D.C. and/or U.S. foreign embassies and/or missions. The JSF program is administered by the National Academy of Sciences and is supported by grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and Carnegie Corporation. Mr. Reynolds noted that 25 Fulbright masters from Iraq would be coming to the United States in June 2004 to be trained in public health programs for two years. Mr. Reynolds identified the United States as a nexus of science and diplomacy.
Examples of current efforts to promote S&T cooperation, education, and economic stability in nations across the globe were also discussed, including United States participation in the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, which had its roots in the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and the resulting Agenda 21 that addressed ways to reach global sustainable development in the 21st Century. The Millennium Challenge Account, an initiative to decrease poverty and increase economic stability in developing nations that was proposed by President Bush in 2003, was also discussed. Mr. Reynolds noted that having the United States again as a partner in UNESCO opens up many important avenues for discussion on basic science, mathematics and engineering education and cultural heritage, and that the United States will make important contributions to UNESCO’s mission to seek practical improvements in human life around the globe.
In closing, Mr. Reynolds noted that many challenges lie ahead for the STAS and the United States, and that S&T will play a key role in the solutions. He made reference to several global issues that must be addressed in the 21st Century, including cloning, nanotechnology, biotechnology, cyber security, global economic sustainability, energy (nuclear, hydrogen fuel cells, fossil fuels, renewal sources), health (HIV/AIDS, SARS), and genetically modified food. Mr. Reynolds emphasized the importance of both food and energy to world stability, observing that science will be a central element in changes in food production, energy use, and the ability to extend life. Most importantly, S&T will determine how societies will be organized in the 21st Century.
Website: http://www.state.gov/g/stas/.
James L. Connaughton
Chairman
White House Council on Environmental Quality
(January 22, 2004)Topic: Attaining Productive Harmony in Environmental Policy in the 21st Century
On January 22, 2004, the Resources for the Future (RFF) Policy Leadership Forum hosted Mr. James L. Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, to address future environmental policy. Mr. Connaughton is the senior environmental advisor to the President, as well as Director of the White House Office of Environmental Policy. The RFF Policy Leadership Forum provides prominent public policy-makers with a neutral site to present and discuss their ideas on important energy, environmental, and natural resource issues.
Mr. Connaughton began by stating that the country has made great progress in protecting the environment. He pointed out that new technologies have expanded the United States economy since the 1800s also enabling the United States to implement sound environmental solutions. Over the past 30 years, air pollution in the United States from the six major pollutants decreased by 48 percent, even as population grew 39 percent; domestic energy consumption increased 42 percent, and the economy grew 164 percent; in just three decades the number of our citizens who benefit from modern wastewater treatment doubled from 86 million in 1968 to 165 million citizens today; and, in the wake of celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the United States has dramatically improved the overall health of its marine waters, lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands.
He then reviewed the core drivers for the Bush Administration’s environmental policies. First and foremost, he said, the Administration is focused on results. Is the air cleaner? Is our water better protected? Are contaminated lands being cleaned up? Are United States’ parks well-maintained and managed? Second, Bush Administration decisions must be based on sound science and quality data. Third, the government places a strong emphasis on innovation in technology and policy. Fourth, the Administration also places a strong premium on understanding the impact of a policy on the people directly affected by it, and fosters more local collaboration to develop more local solutions. Fifth and finally, he stated, that the Administration looks for solutions that will harness and amplify America’s ethic of personal stewardship and responsibility.
Mr. Connaughton then summarized some of the major environmental accomplishments of the Bush Administration. He noted that one of today’s most compelling challenges is the effort to restore the health and vitality of our cities. He stated that two well-intentioned environmental policies converged to impose significant barriers to new investment in our urban centers. The first is the prospect of Superfund liability for taking on the task of redeveloping abandoned industrial sites; and the second is the prospect of regulatory uncertainty and high cost of expanding existing facilities, or siting new facilities to meet increasingly stringent air quality standards. Mr. Connaughton pointed out that the President’s Brownfields and Clear Skies initiatives, along with new interstate air quality and diesel pollution regulations, are designed to substantially turn this situation around while still meeting public health and environmental protection objectives.
In his view, the next bundle of challenges occurs in the rural community. Mr. Connaughton said that, whether addressing the impact of non-point source run-off on water quality, responding to the need for wetlands and ecosystem restoration, helping to preserve species, or finding ways to cost-effectively sequester greenhouse gases, the Nation’s farmers and ranchers figure prominently. He maintained that efforts to impose more classic regulatory approaches to address these issues expose the practical, economic, and political difficulty of completing and sustaining such measures. That is why the Administration decided to look at these issues from the opposite perspective – a way that was certain to evoke a more meaningful response, that would help align agricultural and environmental policies, and that would tap into the stewardship potential inherent in the agricultural community. He noted that the Administration pushed for, and Congress resoundingly enacted, an historic expansion of the Farm Bill’s conservation programs to roughly $40 billion.Mr. Connaughton then moved on to discuss climate change policy. He stated that the most constructive path to progress on climate change policy for the United States should begin with the following key factors: 1) slowing the increase in emissions, and then, as the science justifies, stopping it, and then reversing it; 2) assuring that the Nation operates within the practical, political, and technological realities of its domestic greenhouse gas emissions profile; 3) finding more constructive ways to partner with the developing world through understanding its global profiles of greenhouse gas intensity; 4) concentrating its effort on, and being realistic about, the timelines for deployment of the transformational technologies; and 5) building on the substantial common ground that exists among policies at the national level.
In concluding, Mr. Connaughton noted that, in order to achieve harmony, the Bush Administration must harness the power of economic growth, better integrate environmental objectives into other policy arenas, continue the work of constructing human networks at the national, state, and local levels, capitalize further on the investment in information and the powerful new technologies, place even more of a premium on collaboration and consensus processes, and, lastly simplify to better enable the environmental stewards to produce real results.
The website for the White House Council on Environmental Quality is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq and the website for Resources for the Future is: http://www.rff.org.
Alan I. Leshner
Chief Executive Officer
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(January 29, 2004)
Topic: The Role of Large Professional Societies in Shaping Scientific Policy and ProgressAs Chief Executive Officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Dr. Alan I. Leshner provided his perspective on “The Role of Large Professional Societies in Shaping Scientific Policy and Progress,” which he dubbed “Lessons from the Drug Wars and Other Stuff I’ve Done.” With a membership of 130,000 individuals and 272 affiliated societies, AAAS is the oldest and largest multidisciplinary scientific and engineering society in the United States. Dr. Leshner also serves as executive publisher of Science magazine, which is published by AAAS.
Prior to assuming his present position in December 2001, Dr. Leshner, a behavioral endocrinologist, had served as Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In addition to senior positions with the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation, he was Professor of Psychology at Bucknell University for ten years.
Dr. Leshner set the stage by describing the two different forms of science policy – policies that relate to science or those using or informed by science – and the different roles played by scientists in each category. Regarding policies about science and its conduct, scientists are viewed as advocates. In the second category, scientists act as advisors to the policy-makers, providing scientific expertise.
He also outlined a number of principles for scientists acting in an advisory role, making a distinction between scientific data and values, or beliefs. While policy is made on the basis of facts and values, scientists should act as the providers of facts on a given issue within their specific areas of expertise. Scientists have an obligation to guard the integrity of science. They should be bound by the data, while policy-makers may not be. Dr. Leshner views the latter group as the value people.
Dr. Leshner also shared his thoughts on the role of scientific societies in public policy. Unlike AAAS, specialized societies advocate funding for their fields. AAAS represents the entire scientific enterprise and, therefore, needs to be balanced across all fields. AAAS rarely advocates funding and does not take agency-specific positions. AAAS has a long tradition of not joining group causes. However, the AAAS Board will take a position on issues of sufficient magnitude, such as cloning.
Noting the role of AAAS in public engagement, Dr. Leshner does see an obligation to get out to the general public on issues of priority to them – the public agenda. AAAS has an array of science policy programs on issues such as science, ethics and religion, scientific freedom and science and human rights. AAAS also does an analysis of the federal research and development budget, holds an annual science and technology policy colloquium and runs a science and technology fellowship program.
Closing with some comments on Science magazine, Dr. Leshner pointed out that its editorial operations are completely independent of AAAS, with its own staff of reporters and editors. The content breakdown is about 55 percent on the life sciences and about 45 percent on the physical sciences. Using a rigorous review process, the magazine publishes about one out of every eleven of the 11,000 manuscript submissions received a year.
The AAAS website is: http://www.aaas.org.
James. R. Zimbelman
Geologist and Department Chair
Center for Earth and Planetary Studies
Smithsonian Institution
(February 4, 2004)Topic: Site visit to the Smithsonian Center for Earth and Planetary Studies
Since 1988, Dr. James Zimbelman has been Chair of the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies at the Smithsonian Institution, which serves as a NASA-supported Regional Planetary Image Facility. The Center, located in the Smithsonian’s very popular Air and Space Museum, also utilizes Dr. Zimbelman, whose doctorate is in geology, as a staff geologist specializing in volcanic and sand dune issues.
The primary mission of the Center is to act as a reference library by providing planetary science researchers with access to an extensive collection of image data obtained from planetary missions. A small, but dedicated, staff of 16 works at the image facility, which houses and manages over 300,000 public domain photographs and images of the planets and their satellites.
The Center is known to house excellent quality photos, particularly from the early manned missions, such as Gemini. Photo images from the Center’s extensive collection of space shuttle photographs, as well as selected images from remote sensing experiments, are used for research in comparative planetology. Most of the Center’s focus is now on other planets. With funding from NASA, the Center is also obliged to institute proper care for the images and perform outreach efforts to prospective users.
Dr. Zimbelman introduced the ComSci Fellows to the world of planetology by presenting a wall mural map of the equator on Mars. Craters, volcanoes and large canyons on Mars were easily found. He then allowed the ComSci Fellows to see firsthand the photo images that are catalogued and used by visiting researchers.
During the visit of the Center, NASA’s latest unmanned mission to Mars was sending back photos with encouraging images that showed evidence of water having been present on the planet. This evidence of water is most important to scientists who conclude this could mean the possibility of life having been on Mars.
The extremely sophisticated cameras that were sending back photo images from Mars contained large numbers of pixels that strain the current equipment. Dr. Zimbelman told the ComSci Fellows that in 2005 there will be a mission with even more powerful cameras that will need tetrabyte size computers in order to capture and contain the images.
The dazzling pictures from Rover sparked many questions from the group about how the Center staff was involved with cataloguing the images from the mission. Dr. Zimbelman told the ComSci Fellows some of the early photo images are so dense that current technology does not exist to digitalize them.
An unexpected feature of the tour was a visit to Dr. Zimbelman’s office that has a grand view of the Mall and the other museums. After talking with Dr. Zimbelman, the ComSci Fellows toured the “Exploring the Planets” exhibit and then were guests of Dr. Zimbelman in the state-of-the art, digital technology-equipped, Albert Einstein Planetarium for "Infinity Express: A 20-Minute Tour of the Universe."
The new digital all-dome system uses the Zeiss VI – a projector presented by West Germany to the United States as a bicentennial gift combined with 12 powerful projectors to pump seamlessly blended space imagery onto the entire surface of the 70-foot-high planetarium dome. The images extend beyond peripheral vision, creating the sensation of a three-dimensional journey as if zooming through the solar system, past the Milky Way, to the very edges of the cosmos. With this digital all-dome technology the Smithsonian meets the challenge of providing solid educational content that is both engaging and fun.
The CEPS website is: http://www.nasm.si.edu/ceps/.
Mario Cardullo
Counselor, Technology and Entrepreneurism
Office of the Under Secretary
International Trade Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
(February 11, 2004)Topic: Department of Commerce International Science Issues
Mr. Mario Cardullo currently serves as the Counselor for Technology and Entrepreneurism, to Mr. Grant Aldonas, the Under Secretary of Commerce for the International Trade Administration. An experienced engineer and management professional specializing in technology management, Mr. Cardullo introduced the ComSci Fellows to his world of the business side of technology by giving a presentation on the structure of the United States venture capital industry.
He explained the importance of knowing and understanding each sector’s investment philosophy as it applies to technology transfer. The investment strategy of the semiconductor industry is very different than that of the mobile power source industry. Mr. Cardullo went on to say that not only is it important to know the technical terms, but, to define policy, it is also necessary to know the market and the competition it faces.
In the newly formed Office of Technology and Entrepreneurism, Mr. Cardullo employs his entrepreneurial skills to lead a deputy and an office of detailees who work with business angel networks, or venture capitalists, to sponsor technology showcases for entrepreneurs around the world. Mr. Cardullo has focused on finding sponsors for the international technology forums that he organizes. To date, there have been several very successful forums in Japan, France, Russia and Thailand. This year, there are plans for additional forums in Peru, China, Chile, Jordan, Italy, Hungary and Romania. Much of what is organized is done by employing “bootstrapping” techniques that utilize other agency funds to support the technology forums. At the forum in Japan, Mr. Cardullo was able to attract 25 entrepreneurs and several government officials, venture capitalists and lawyers interested in growing companies around promising technology.
Mr. Cardullo takes a macro level view of his mission to stimulate technology entrepreneurism and has proposed establishing a $10 billion venture capitalist fund managed by a non-governmental organization tied to the Department of Commerce. He views trade as a link to entrepreneurism and democracy, particularly in the emerging markets of Eastern Europe and South America. Mr. Cardullo is also currently writing a report listing the hot technologies and outlining where the global opportunities exist.
Mr. Cardullo has been the founder or principal in a number of technology companies and is the inventor of one of the basic patents for the soon-to-be ubiquitous radio frequency identification tag (RFID-TAG). For this invention and for conceiving the mobile communication satellite concept, Mr. Cardullo was nominated for the 2003 Presidential National Medal of Technology.
To read more about Mr. Cardullo and his invention of the RFID Tag read “Genesis of the Versatile RFID Tag,” go to: http://216.121.131.129/article/articleprint/392/-1/2/.
Harold Craighead
Co-Director for Research
Nanobiotechnology Center
Cornell University
(February 25, 2004)Topic: Biological Applications of Micro and Nanoscale Devices
Dr. Harold Craighead is currently the Co-Director for Research at the Nanobiotechnology Center at Cornell University. With a background in physics, Dr. Craighead has previously held positions at Bell Laboratories and Bellcore before joining Cornell as a Professor in the School of Applied and Engineering Physics in 1989.
The main topics of Dr. Craighead’s presentation dealt with different kinds of nanoscale devices that are used as biological probes. He emphasized that his work has nothing to do with the popular concept of nanotechnology being synonymous with “nanobots.” On the contrary, the tools used for his research include fabrication technologies, such as photolithography, electron beam lithography and scanning probes. All of these can be employed to approach the molecular level and apply nanofabrication techniques to biological systems.
The first part of Dr. Craighead’s talk dealt with single molecule studies and the use of nanoprobes to gain insight into biochemistry and biological systems in general. These probes include detector arrays that test cellular functions, both spatially and temporally. For example, chemical patterning has been used to examine antigen response at the cellular level by using fluorescent tags on patterned proteins fixed on a substrate. The patterning aids in “seeing” the antibody-antigen response. This technique has been used to study how toxins, such as tetanus or cholera, enter a cell through the cellular membrane, here simulated by a lipid bilayer model. Electrical and optical detectors were also used to test surface topography models, such as rust spore entry into a leaf stoma.
The second area of discussion was on the molecular level; i.e., to use nanodevices to probe molecular activity. Dr. Craighead described a DNA molecule being driven into an electrical field. This stretches out the normally coiled molecule and its length can be measured. This data can be used as a kind of crude DNA fingerprint. Another research area is to use DNA polymerase for sequencing the base pairs, as the enzyme makes a copy of a test DNA molecule. Optical spectroscopy is used to view the binding of single base pairs, as it appears to be a burst of fluorescent activity. Another detection method is using a cantilever coated with antibodies, dip it into a cell suspension and use a resonant device to detect the oscillation shift. The difference in the binding of cell mass is proportional to the mass shift, with a calculated sensitivity of 0.4 attograms.
Dr. Craighead also discussed the ethics of nanotechnology with the ComSci Fellows. He noted that the ethics considerations should be the same as in any branch of scientific research. Much of the apprehensions of the general public, such as decrying the ethics of “nanobots,” can be answered by increased public education to promote better understanding of what nanotechnology is (and is not). He described the nano-oscillators designed by his research group, where vibration measured using electro-optical-thermal-mechanical effects due to a laser. The shape of the oscillators can be modified, and the idea of a benign “harp” or “guitar” shaped oscillator was used to counteract the public fear of “nanobots.”
In summary, Dr, Craighead emphasized that Cornell, as an academic institution, has goals that are science and technology oriented, and not for definitive applications. The work he described will feed applications in the future, but scientists, as well as the public, need to have realistic expectations of what nanotechnology will do.
The Nanobiotechnology website is: http://www.nbtc.cornell.edu.
Visit to the U.S. Botanic Garden
(March 3, 2004)The ComSci Fellows’ visit to the U.S. Botanic Garden (USBG) provided a welcomed respite from the cold spring of 2004. Dr. Christine Flanagan, Manager for Public Programs, presented an overview of the history, policies and plans of the USBG followed by an in-depth “behind the scenes” tour. The visit truly helped the ComSci Fellows to understand the mission of USBG, which is to demonstrate the ecological, economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits of plants, and to maintain a collection of rare and endangered plant species through partnerships with other organizations and countries.
The idea of a national botanic garden first emerged in 1816 when the Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences in Washington, D.C. proposed the creation of a garden for the benefit of the American people. In 1820, Congress designated an area west of the Capitol grounds between Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues for the purpose of establishing the U.S. Botanic Garden. In 1842, the idea of a national garden was further invigorated with the addition of a collection of living plants acquired from the recently returned United States Exploring Expedition to the South Seas (the Wilkes Expedition).
The USBG moved to its present location on Independence Avenue S.W. in 1933, and includes a Conservatory and two acres of surrounding exterior grounds, the outdoor display gardens in Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Park, and the Administration Building. A plant production and support facility, opened in Anacostia in 1993, includes 34 greenhouse bays and maintenance shops. In addition, there are plans to build The National Garden, funded by the National Fund for the USBG on three acres directly west of the Conservatory. Currently, the USBG maintains about 26,000 plants that are used for exhibition, study, and exchange with other institutions. Plant variety is immense, including economic plants, medicinal plants, orchids, cacti and succulents, bromeliads, cycads, and ferns. At any one time, about 4,000 of these are on public display in the Conservatory and around the grounds.
The Architect of the Capitol through the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the USBG, and for any construction, changes, and improvements made to the buildings and grounds. In the mid-1990s, the USBG initiated a major renovation and reorganization of buildings and staff. Renovations required the Conservatory and other buildings to be closed for four years. Staff changes were accomplished through buyouts and retirements to address reorganization needs. The long-awaited changes have provided not only state-of-the-art environmental controls for the benefit of both plants and people, but also an educational living plant museum that will help ensure long-term protection of our precious plant resources.
Additional information on the U.S. Botanic Garden can be found at: http://www.usbg.gov.
Kei Koizumi
Director, Research and Development Budget and Policy Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(March 8, 2004)Topic: Federal R&D Investment in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005
Offered as a special ComSci session on the federal budget, a presentation on the research and development (R&D) segment was given by Mr. Kei Koizumi, Director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). A recognized authority on the Federal Budget and R&D funding, he is the chief writer and editor of the annual AAAS reports on R&D. Serving as a nonpartisan source of information, AAAS has been doing budget analysis for 30 years and Mr. Koizumi, for the last nine.
R&D is very much a part of the discretionary portion of the federal budget, accounting for one-sixth of it. While 25 agencies are involved, seven of them fund about 96 percent of R&D. The Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, primarily the National Institutes of Health, have the largest proposed budgets for FY 2005. The remaining five of the seven, in descending order, are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Federal R&D funding proposed for FY 2005 is at $132 billion – a 4.3 percent increase over FY 2004. This increase would be spent on weapons development and homeland security R&D. According to Mr. Koizumi, the FY 2005 Federal Budget in line with recent trends would provide flat or declining funding for most R&D programs. Funding for non-defense basic and applied research, or, “6.1” and “6.2,” would remain basically flat at $55.7 billion. Among multi-agency science and technology initiatives, nanotechnology would receive the most funding, with the networking and information technology initiative and the Climate Change Science Program coming in second and third, respectively.
Regarding trends in research by discipline, funding for the life sciences has been increasing since 1970, while it has remained mostly flat for the other disciplines, such as the physical sciences, engineering, environmental sciences and mathematics/computer science. Mr. Koizumi did cite the sharp decline in increased funding for the National Institutes of Health in the FY 2005 budget in contrast to recent years, with most of the institutes up only three percent.
Looking at R&D worldwide, Mr. Koizumi pointed out that the United States funds the largest amount – approximately 37 percent of the total. Japan comes in second at 14 percent and Germany, third at 7 percent. China and South Korea are substantially expanding investment. Unlike other nations, the United States sets R&D funding according to national priorities, such as defense and health.
Over the next few years, Mr. Koizumi predicts that both defense and non-defense discretionary spending will decline, as both the President and Congress try to reduce the budget deficit by cutting domestic spending. And, in the nearer term, none of the domestic appropriations bills may be passed before the elections this year.
Information on the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program and its reports can be found at: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd.
David S. Trinkle
Program Examiner, Science and Space Programs Branch
Office of Management and Budget
(March 8, 2004)Topic: The Federal Budget Process
Mr. David S. Trinkle, a program examiner with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Executive Office of the President, focused his remarks on the development of annual discretionary spending in the Federal Budget. With OMB since 2000, Mr. Trinkle is the principal analyst for government research and development (R&D), handling many R&D-related management, budget and policy issues that cross agency lines. He oversees selected interagency R&D efforts, including the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Networking and Information Technology R&D, and coordination groups of the National Science and Technology Council.
Mr. Trinkle began by pointing out that discretionary, as distinct from mandatory, spending is controlled through the annual appropriations process. Each federal agency submits a budget in the fall, with the respective OMB examiners providing help in the months prior to this time. OMB will then provide feedback on the submitted budget. Each agency then has a limited time to appeal funding differences to OMB. After the appeal process, there is a “settlement” for each agency, and the entire budget is then officially announced by the President in February. The announced budget sets the tone for future discussions and is quite detailed. It is then sent to Capitol Hill for review by the House and the Senate.
The House and Senate Budget Committees develop their own versions of a budget resolution. Mr. Trinkle described a budget resolution as basically an agreement Congress makes with itself not to spend more than the specified amount of money. If the traditional schedule holds, both are developed by early April and the leading budget committee members from both chambers develop a consensus agreement called a conference report that is typically adopted in April/May. The two chambers arrive at a concurrent budget resolution, which is not formally a law and does not require the President’s signature. The budget resolution sets in motion legislation that, when enacted, has the force of law. The House and Senate Appropriation Committees then report changes in law to comply with the budget resolution and develop the appropriation bills for the government. The House and Senate separately vote on 13 different appropriations bills. The different versions of these bills must be reconciled between the House and Senate and final approval given. The appropriations bills are then sent to the President for either his approval or veto.
With some debates on appropriations becoming difficult to resolve, the different appropriations bills are often not finalized prior to the start of the fiscal year that the appropriation addresses. Congress must then pass a Continuing Resolution for stopgap funding, which ties an agency to a specific spending account. If the agency wanted to change it significantly, it would need OMB approval. As Mr. Trinkle pointed out, there is not a lot of flexibility.
Going through this entire process, the activities related to a single fiscal year usually stretch out over a period of at least two-and-a-half calendar years. As the budget is being considered, federal agencies must deal with three different fiscal years at the same time – implementing the budget for the current fiscal year, seeking funds from Congress for the next fiscal year, and planning for the fiscal year after that.
Mr. Trinkle also noted some special budget cases. One is the preparation of a transition budget in the case of an election year, such as 2004. The OMB examiners act as long-term, non-political appointees, and, as such, are the “corporate memory.” At the time of an election, the examiners prepare transition papers; summarize relevant issues for the transition team. Another special case is the reaction to severe and unforeseen events, such as September 11. To handle such emergency instances, Congress may have to pass an emergency relief bill. The question then becomes how to pay for this – whether to shift the existing funds of an agency to handle the response or pass a supplemental funding bill.
The OMB website is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.
H. Jeffrey Leonard
President
Global Environment Fund
(March 10, 2004)Topic: Balancing Sustainable Development and Private Sector Investing
Dr. H. Jeffrey Leonard is currently the President of the Global Environment Fund (GEF), an investment firm with a specific mission toward environmentally sound business investments. His previous experience has been in public policy (regulations, government, non-profit organizations), especially with respect to the environment.
Dr. Leonard opened his presentation with an overview of investment strategies. Venture capital, or VC, is a huge investment, and GEF often sits back to avoid getting caught up in technology hysteria. His firm works hard to avoid fads. He also stressed that investments should be in emerging markets – NOT in replacement markets. He cited nanotechnology as a replacement market. Dr. Leonard reviewed two GEF fundamental beliefs. In the United States, GEF moves from “end-of-pipe” solutions to “efficiency and new technology,” and, internationally, it moves from local to global – “what’s happening in India affects us.”
He also reviewed the GEF mission: to develop, finance and manage successful businesses that promote sustainable natural resource management, a cleaner environment and improved public health. GEF added the concept of “manage” over time because just financing and then going “hands-off” was not giving a return on investment. He reiterated this as a triple bottom-line philosophy:
- Economic return,
- Social development, and
- Environmental improvement.
GEF looks for a subset of investments that achieve all three. It also makes an effort not to invest in money losers, such as environmental improvements that won’t make any money, leaving those sorts of investments to government regulators. Integrating multiple technologies is looked upon very favorably.
Responding to a question regarding the extent to which regulations are viewed as a driver to open markets, Dr. Leonard said regulations are a double-edged sword. They can help and hurt, but generally GEF avoids assets whose value relies on regulations because the regulations can be changed and the assets then become liabilities. Dr. Leonard said that his firm monitors the marking of regulations somewhat, but not to a large extent.
A brief discussion about the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program followed. Dr. Leonard said that they used to scour SBIR reports and track SBIR closely, but found that almost all will never be more than “SBIR companies.” The only time SBIR is good is when it helps provide a match to ideas that they embrace, independent of the program. To put it another way, Dr. Leonard said that the SBIR program is good at funding technology advancements, but not good at forming companies.
Dr. Leonard agreed that it is very important for VCs to have broad portfolios. He also acknowledged that investing overseas must be done in a country that respects private property and has a judicial system.
Dr. Leonard then reviewed two examples of diversified investments they’ve made – Essex and Athena – two companies that have had recent success, one as a supplier of advanced optical technologies, and the other as a developer of the avionic control guidance system. One of the overall themes that GEF is building into its investments is modeled after the “Intel Inside” campaign. In this case, GEF is marketing environmentally sound products and services with the tag, “Environmental Inside.”
In closing, Dr. Leonard spoke about the degree to which his firm has had to wrestle with balancing the environment with defense. Some of his investors don’t want to invest in defense, but they must balance that with the fact that so many technology advancements are based on investments in the defense industry, such as those funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Ways in which the government helps or hurts private sector venture capital investment were briefly discussed. Government’s weaknesses include unpredictable or frequently changing regulations, favoring the status quo at the expense of technology advancements, choosing an unpredictable or unprofitable market, and not particularly capable of picking “winners” or forming companies. However, these weaknesses are offset by the government’s strengths, which include administering the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) grants, picking up the financial slack on environmental money losers, and supporting DARPA and SBIR as technology advancers.Additional information about GEF can be found at:
http://www.new-ventures.org/resources.gef.html.
Richard Bissell
Executive Director for Policy and Global Affairs
The National Research Council
(March 17, 2004)Topic: National Academies of Science (NAS) Overview, and Role of NAS in Shaping U.S. Science and Technology Policy
Dr. Richard Bissell is the Executive Director for Policy and Global Affairs of the National Research Council, as well as Director of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). With a Ph.D. in international economics, Dr. Bissell has had extensive experience in the area of economic development
Dr. Bissell presented an overview of the structure of the National Academies. There are four academies operating within the umbrella of the National Academies – the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, and the National Academy of Engineering. The oldest component, the National Academy of Sciences, was established in 1863 to advise the Federal Government on technical and scientific matters. Each component has at least 1,000 members who are leaders in their fields; membership terms are for life.
Dr. Bissell spoke extensively about the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC conducts reviews of questions of scientific or engineering interest, primarily at the request of the Federal Government. The NRC operates according to three fundamental principles when conducting studies: 1) independence, 2) balanced perspective across the membership, and 3) objectivity. Consensus studies are conducted by groups of scientists and engineers who agree to serve without compensation and are selected to represent a broad range of opinions. Study topics are negotiated with the requester and the NRC bases acceptance of study requests on whether the information derived from the study will be of significant value to the Federal Government or a scientific or engineering community. Panel participants are both members of the academies and ad hoc participants. Meetings are conducted according to Federal Advisory Committee Act rules. In addition to consensus studies, the NRC conducts Convening Activities, such as workshops and round tables, and Operational Programs, such as fellowships and surveys.
More information on NAS can be found at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nas/.
James R. Shoemaker
Program Manager
Orbital Express Space Operations Architecture/ASTRO Program
Tactical Technology Office
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
(April 7, 2004)Topic: DARPA and the Orbital Express Space Operations Architecture/ASTRO Program
Lt. Col. James Shoemaker introduced himself and provided a brief description of DARPA’s organization and operations to the ComSci Fellows. He included a short description of some DARPA programs in the aerospace field. He then provided a summary of the Orbital Express program for which he serves as program manager.
Program development ideas are often formulated at lower levels and then run up through the office director to the DARPA Director who is a political appointee. If the Director approves of the idea, he provides money to the appropriate office to begin formulating a plan. One of the more interesting aspects of DARPA is that most employees are only temporary hires for an estimated period of about four years; DARPA believes that this shortened employment timeframe forces motivation.
Lt. Col. Shoemaker’s Orbital Express program is located in the Tactical Technology Office (TTO). TTO and the Special Projects Office (SPO) focus on space but any DARPA office can pursue space technologies with approval from the Director. TTO’s Orbital Express program is aimed at a number of technology demonstrations. The key technology is on-orbit servicing (OOS). OOS promises to extend the life and maneuverability of military satellites by allowing them to be refueled. Current satellites end their useful lives when they deplete their propellant and do not significantly change their orbital parameters in order to conserve fuel. This technology would also open the possibility of upgrading satellite electronics. OOS would provide an enormous tactical advantage to the United States military.
The Orbital Express concept is to develop a service satellite capable of mating to an existing satellite and transferring propellant and/or swapping out electrical boxes. The current program schedule plans for an OOS demonstration in 2006 by launching two satellites (servicing satellite and mock satellite) on an Atlas V launch vehicle. The two satellites would be used to demonstrate mating operations using two different capture methods, fluid and electronic box transfer, and uncoupling operations. The ComSci Fellows look forward to following the results of yet one more unique DARPA technology demonstration.
The DARPA website is: http://www.darpa.mil/.
John Haskell
Senior Fellow
Government Affairs Institute
Georgetown University
(April 14, 2004)Topic: The Congressional Budget and Appropriation Process
Dr. John Haskell, a Senior Fellow with the Government Affairs Institute (GAI) at Georgetown University, spoke to the ComSci Fellows about how Congress develops the annual budget and federal appropriations bills. This concentrated presentation was scheduled at the request of the ComSci Fellows, who had heard many pieces of the budget and appropriation puzzle during their congressional orientation week, but still wanted a more coherent summary.
Dr. Haskell compared the congressional budget process to a jazz piece, incorporating creativity and improvisation. With the Congressional Budget and Appropriation Process Worksheet as the “sheet music,” Congress then improvises, within certain rules, to be able to get the budget passed through both houses. He told the group that 80 to 90 percent of the budget items are non-controversial. The catch is the last 15 to 20 percent.
The blueprint is the Congressional Budget Resolution, which is fairly general in nature. It is not really binding, but is of political importance. Some of the items will have detailed program information, but this is not always the case. This resolution is where the majority party states its priorities in spending, taxes and the deficit. In contrast to the previous administration, the same party (Republican) controls the White House and Congress, so it is more difficult to blame “someone else” when the economy takes a downturn. Since the Budget Resolution is a majority statement, no filibuster is allowed.
Each Congress handles deficit spending differently. There is a feeling that something needs to be done, but any action is not politically rewarding, since cuts would need to be made. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised taxes and reduced spending, so the democratically-controlled Congress went along with him. However, in 1994, the Democrats lost control of Congress, which may or may not have been a reaction to these actions.
The current President has chosen a different route. He feels that tax cuts are more politically important than deficit handling. From Congress’ point of view, however, something more tangible, such as building roads, is more politically advantageous.
Last year, the Budget Resolution was $786 billion. However, Congress could not stick to this figure and had to go $6 billion over. This was due to actions in the Gulf and other increased defense and homeland security spending that had not been foreseen. This year, there is no extra money for defense, which may cause the need for a supplemental defense bill before January 2005.
Dr. Haskell gave two reasons why it is difficult to “stick to the sheet music.” First, there is not enough money in the allocation to get votes on the floor. Politically-important items, such as roads, are always added in. Second, since every Member of Congress knows that pet legislative needs may not go anywhere; amendments get added to the appropriations bills. In other words, policy issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, and really unrelated, get added onto the bills. Therefore, the appropriation bills are put together as larger “omnibus” bills, with the extra programs included as incentives for votes in Congress.
The lesson learned in recent budget and appropriations cycles is that, even with a “unified” government, the process has not been simplified.
29th Annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy
(April 22-23, 2004)Each spring, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) sponsors the AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the forum is to promote discussion about current policy trends and issues facing the science and technology community. The forum routinely attracts top experts in various science-related fields as speakers and participants, and this year was no exception.
Held at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, the Forum opened with a warm welcome from Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson,
President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and current President of AAAS. She introduced the Forum Keynote Speaker, Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Marburger emphasized the Bush Administration’s commitment to science, especially in the areas of homeland security, defense, and key areas of science and technology related to long-term economic growth. In addition, he covered science policy issues and science programs he perceives as priorities including balancing science and security, societal impacts of science and technology, health sciences, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, energy and environment, economic vitality, and space science and exploration.Following the keynote address, Dr. Jackson moderated a Plenary Session on Budgetary and Policy Context for research and development (R&D) in FY 2005. Speakers included Senator Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader (D-South Dakota); Mr. Kei Koizumi, Director of the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program; Dr. Daniel Yankelovich, Founder and Chairman of Viewpoint Inc. and Public Agenda; and Dr. Luke Georghiou, Professor of Science and Technology Policy and Management, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Three concurrent sessions were held during the afternoon to address major issues in science and technology policy. Session A examined policy implications of converging new technologies, especially nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive technology. The speakers discussed the status of new technologies, their promise and uncertainties and prospects for intersections among them, and social and ethical implications. Session B addressed policy and civic implications of information technologies. Topics included the merits, risks, and vulnerabilities of new voting technologies; digital-divide issues; IT and privacy concerns; control of the Internet; and using the Web to build a more informed and engaged citizenry. Session C discussed the question – how sustainable is the modern research university? Discussants reviewed a number of issues including changes in institutional mission, funding profile, and management structures; public expectations of universities; stakeholder interests; reward structures; public universities and autonomy; and structural strains between R&D and teaching, graduate and undergraduate education, and academic departments and research centers.
The first day of the Forum came to an end in the early evening with the William D. Carey Lecture and Reception. Dr. Harold Varmus, President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, gave an address on “Science, Government, and the Public Interest.” Dr. Varmus discussed six policy issues of strategic importance to all scientists – financing research, immigration practices, independence of peer review, separating religion and science, globalizing science, and disseminating scientific knowledge.
The morning agenda for the second day of the Forum focused on the challenges for the United States in the evolution of the global economy, with Ambassador Ira Shapiro as moderator. The speaker list featured Dr. Catherine Mann (Institute for International Economics), Dr. Ron Hira (Rochester Institute of Technology), Ms. Diana Hicks (Georgia Institute of Technology), Mr. Dave McCurdy (Electronic Industries Alliance), and Mr. William Bonvillian (Office of Senator Joseph Lieberman). The topics for the session included the outsourcing of United States jobs in high-technology fields, science and technology (S&T) education maturity in developing nations, the United States use of foreign-born talent, and the United States ability to lead the way in the global community through innovation. Session highlights included information on the emergence of China as a science and technology power. This is considered by many to be the greatest challenge the United States has faced economically, even greater than that posed by Japan in the 1960s and 1970s. It was felt that the Japanese S&T economy is similar to that of the United States in providing a high-value, high-salaried, highly trained work force, and having a rule of law to protect commercial rights. In China, the United States faces a low-value, low-wage, highly trained emerging work force and a nation that does not adhere to an international code for commercial properties.
According to many of the session speakers, one of the biggest weapons that the United States has against the encroachment of developing S&T countries, such as China, India, and Korea, is its power of innovation. Innovation is the way to economic growth and will keep a technology-dependent country like the United States competitive in the global marketplace, despite losses in manufacturing capabilities. In order to foster innovation, it was felt that the U.S. Government should invest in broad sciences and not limit research and development spending to specific S&T applications that may be favorable at the moment.The closing session of the Forum was on the impact of post-9/11 policies on science. The session speakers were Dr. Alice Gast (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Dr. John McGowan (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), and Mr. David Heyman (Center for Strategic and International Studies). It was pointed out that one quiet but high-impact fallout of the 9/11 tragedy was the strict review of visa applications, resulting in a reduction of foreign scientists working in the United States. It was noted that the United States, from the industrial age to today, has enjoyed the presence of the world’s brightest minds, especially in our educational institutions. The reduction in foreign talent in our educational system is directly related to the tight restrictions on visa applications.
Many of the presentations can be found on the AAAS website: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/forum.htm.
Visit to the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
Edgewater, Maryland
(April 28, 2004)The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) is the largest of five research centers operated out of the Smithsonian. SERC is located in Edgewater, Maryland, about 20 miles east of Washington, D.C., on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. SERC has been in operation since 1965, on land donated from a former dairy farmer. On the 2,600 acres of SERC, scientists do various ecological studies, involving the Chesapeake Bay and its surrounding forests, pastures, freshwater wetlands, tidal marshes and estuaries. In addition, there are also a number of affiliated sites, including some in the Caribbean.
The first item on the tour for the ComSci Fellows was inspecting the mist netting for birds in the gardens, accompanied by Dr. Pete Marra, a bird ecologist from the Avian Laboratory. Due to cold temperatures of the morning, the birds were not very active, and the nets empty, but Dr. Marra described the function of the netting and the network of volunteer “citizen” backyard observers throughout the area, who help inventory the bird population. He also described some of his own research interests, which included winter-limiting conditions on bird dynamics and specifically birds that over winter in areas of the Caribbean. One particular research area is to develop an isotope and genetic base map for American redstarts, which will aid in identifying particular sites where the birds over winter.
Dr. Wayne Coats gave the ComSci Fellows a summary on protistan ecology and, more particularly, aspects of phytoplankton blooms, which occur along certain areas of the coastal United States, and also in the Chesapeake Bay. His research is concerned with biological factors that regulate the cycles of the blooms. Although the blooms occurring locally are not usually of a species directly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, they can create adverse effects, such as oxygen depletion. He illustrated his talk with short videos and slides and discussed the effects that parasites have on bloom cycles. The ComSci Fellows saw a video demonstration of how parasitism can affect the population dynamics of dinoflagellate red tides.
In the Phytoplankton Laboratory, Ms. Sharyn Hedrick described the research topics of this laboratory, and the ComSci Fellows were given a demonstration comparing the optical properties of water, including light absorption and transmittance, in a water sample from the Rhode River with one from a polluted site in the St. Johns River in Florida. Such measurements will enable SERC scientists to interpret parameters that are indicators of a variety of natural and human-induced processes that determine the overall health of the system. Dr. Hedrick told the ComSci Fellows that measurements of water quality in the Rhode River are among the longest running observations at SERC, with concentrations of nutrients, suspended sediments, and phytoplankton pigments measured at biweekly intervals since the mid-1980s.
During lunch, Mr. Paul Fofonoff joined the ComSci Fellows and discussed some of the aspects of invasive species on aquatic areas. Of particular interest was the issue of ballast water from ships introducing non-native marine species, and steps that have been implemented to reduce the occurrence.
The ComSci Fellows were also given a general overview of forest ecology by Dr. Jess Parker, who pointed out observable differences between old forest growth and new growth during a hike through some of SERC’s grounds. The Forest Ecology Laboratory studies the structure, growth and function of forest ecosystems, particularly the canopy portion of deciduous forests. The purpose of dam weirs was also described, which is to help assess watershed status effects through depth and flow measurements at the dam weir sites.
The final event of the site visit was canoeing along part of the Rhode River estuary, with Mr. Fofonoff describing wetlands ecology. The canoeing part of the exercise was challenging for some due to low tide conditions, but all agreed that was an interesting way to observe the wildlife.
Additional information on SERC can be found at: http://www.serc.si.edu.
Mihail C. Roco
Senior Advisor
National Science Foundation
(May 5, 2004)Topic: National Nanotechnology Initiative
The ComSci Fellows received an interesting and comprehensive presentation on nanotechnology and its future in science and industry. Dr. Mihail C. Roco provided an overview of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which included some general definitions of just what nanotechnology is and where it is going in the next 15 to 20 years. Dr. Roco is a senior advisor for nanotechnology at the National Science Foundation (NSF), and chairs the U.S. National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET). He also formally proposed NNI in a presentation to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Committee on Technology on March 11, 1999.
Dr. Roco began his presentation by stating that the NNI is the only initiative of its kind totally based on science that had no initial support from any government agency. He went on to say that certain foundational nanotechnology documents, such as Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, were developed and distributed to support NNI, which showed the effects of nanotechnology on our society and gave a clear picture of just what this new science entails. The main focus of NNI is to reveal how nanotechnology can change the face of industry.
Nanotechnology is working at the atomic, molecular and supramolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1-100 nm range, in order to understand, create and use materials, devices and systems with fundamentally new properties and functions because of their small structure. This NNI definition of nanotechnology is also opening up new doors of scientific discovery that were not previously possible. Dr. Roco believes nanotechnology provides the scientific community the ability to measure, control and manipulate matter at the nanoscale level in order to change their properties and functions.
The long-term societal implications of nanotechnology are staggering – comprehension of nature, improved quality of life in health and environment, as well as an economy that will see a $1 trillion market by 2015, creating more than two million jobs worldwide. Dr. Roco also emphasized that the miniaturization process to which most people relate when discussing or thinking about nanotechnology is not the main scientific interest. In fact, the more important, radical improvements center on the process of generating new property changes at the nanoscale. For example, structures such as carbon nanotubes can be designed from raw materials into products with desired properties and performance in large quantities. Dr. Roco sees new generations of nanostructures and nanosystems developing over the next 20 years or so. Instead of passive nanostructures, such as nanostructured metals, polymers, ceramics, he envisions three-dimensional nanosystems and molecular nanosystems, where there will be complex, non-repeating systems of complex nanosystems, as well as molecular processing that will allow each molecule to act as a single device that forms other systems.
Coordinating the NNI involves many government, state and local entities. Partnerships with industry, states and international organizations, as well as interaction with the public and the media, are extremely important. Research and development (R&D) funding by government agencies shows an encouraging growth pattern from $270 million in 2000 to a possible $1 billion in 2005. Dr. Roco highlighted the fact that, once the United States announced in 2000 that it was going to invest more dollars in nanotechnology, other governments also began to invest in it quite vigorously. Approximately 40 countries, including Japan, South Korea and Germany, are now sponsoring comprehensive programs (over $100 million annually) in nanoscience and nanotechnology.
Dr. Roco insists a strong nano-network infrastructure is necessary if nanotechnology is to maintain the level of progress desired by industry and science. He declared that NNI is already setting new goals by focusing on research, education, and significant infrastructure. Research is reducing the time of reaching commercial prototypes by at least a factor of two for several key applications. In the area of education, an early emphasis on nanotechnology is being achieved as all science and engineering colleges have introduced courses related to nanoscience and engineering. Over 60 universities have become part of the nano-network infrastructure, which includes at least five major networks and a work force totaling almost 40,000 individuals.
Information on the National Nanotechnology Initiative can be found at: http://www.nano.gov.
Visit to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Laboratory
Quantico, Virginia
(May 12, 2004)The FBI Laboratory is located in Quantico, Virginia, at a facility completed in April 2003. The five-story building has about 500,000 square feet of laboratory and office space, compared to the previous 100,000 square feet of retrofitted laboratory facilities and office space in its previous location at FBI headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. Dr. Joseph DiZinno, Deputy Assistant Director, gave the ComSci Fellows an overview of the Laboratory and its facilities. There are about 650 employees in the Laboratory Division of the FBI in nine case-working units, including support staff. All FBI cases involving forensic analysis are worked at the Laboratory. In addition, any United States enforcement agency and some foreign agencies can apply to submit evidence for evaluation by the FBI at no charge. Dr. DiZinno described the change in priorities at the Laboratory since 9/11 – from an emphasis on violent crime investigation to the current emphasis on preventing terrorism. The scientists do not go through agent training, but they must complete a rigorous laboratory training, which includes very specific protocols and how to present evidence for court submission.
The ComSci Fellows were able to get short glimpses of the work done in several of the case-working units. For example, in the Explosives Unit, the ComSci Fellows learned that much of the work done involved post-blast assistance, where they need to analyze many pieces of possible evidence to aid in piecing together what type of improvised explosives device was employed, and evidence to trace the origin of the pieces. To this end, the Explosives Unit has extensive cooperation with most of the other units in the Laboratory.
Work being done in the Chemistry Unit ranges from more general analyses, such as drug quantification, to toxicology, paint and polymers, and elemental analysis. For many of these analyses, the areas for trace and bulk analyses are separated to minimize contamination.
Firearms identification is performed in the Ballistics Unit. There is a reference firearms collection, which serves as both reference library and parts resource, if a part is needed to obtain a “bullet signature” from a gun. There is also a computerized bullet database, the National Bullet Information Network (NBIN), which is used only as a screening device, as actual identification must still be done with microscope.
The two DNA units, Mitochodrial DNA Unit (DNA Unit II) and Nuclear DNA Unit (DNA Unit I), serve different functions, and the physical state and amount of evidence determines which type of analysis will obtain the most useful data. DNA Unit II usually is involved in cold case work where the evidence is often degraded, and where there are only small samples available. This type of DNA provides more general identification, as it indicates familial DNA, and not identification specific to a single individual. DNA Unit I, on the other hand, works more with bodily fluid samples, and determines the unique DNA signature. This unit is connected with the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and the National DNA Index System (NDIS).
The Trace Evidence Unit deals mostly with hair and fibers comparisons, which are extremely useful, but not as concrete as DNA evidence. This Unit also does work with fabric, cordage, feathers, wood, tape, and soils, as well as skeletal remain analysis in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution.
The Latent Print Unit deals not only with fingerprint analysis, but also with latent prints in general, which are prints that require some kind of development for visualization. Along with the demonstration of several techniques for print development, it was explained that all prints are now photographed and digitized for storage and can be computer-enhanced for ease of studying, but never altered. The ComSci Fellows were told that the friction ridges of an individual’s fingers are totally unique, and even when worn down, grow back again with the same pattern.
The final presentation was on the research arm of the FBI Laboratory, the Counterterrorism Forensic Science Research Unit, which has a separate facility from the case-working units. The research and development strategy has been on applied research, and each year Laboratory needs are reassessed. Some of the current projects include automation of various aspects of DNA analysis, imaging improvements and scent analysis.
The ComSci Fellows agreed that the tour presented a fascinating look into the range of forensic work being done at the Laboratory. The amount of information and types of analysis presented the group with an overload of information, but some of the more memorable stories included a description and inside story of the “Shoe Bomber,” with the use of a novel paper fuse, the blood stain pattern analysis from the “Table Saw Suicide,” that presented evidence that it was no suicide, and the description of the “Dead Body School” for specialized forensic analysis of skeletal remains.
30th Anniversary of the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Programs
(May 13-14, 2004)Topic: Vision 2033: Linking Science and Policy for Tomorrow’s World
This one and one-half day symposium was the focal point of the celebration marking the 30th Anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellowship programs. The event was held at the Carnegie Institute of Washington.
The opening remarks were made by Dr. Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer of AAAS, followed by Dr. Albert Teich, Director, Science and Policy Programs, AAAS; Dr. Richard Meserve, President, Carnegie Institute of Washington; Dr. Maxine Singer, President Emeritus, Carnegie Institute of Washington; and Dr. Richard Scribner, former Director of Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Programs, AAAS.
Dr. Leshner mentioned that the Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Programs began on Capitol Hill in 1973 with seven Fellows serving in congressional offices, providing their scientific expertise to policy-makers facing increasingly technical legislative issues. The success of the program has led to the establishment of AAAS public policy fellowship programs in nearly a dozen agencies. AAAS sponsors the Science and Technology Policy Fellowship programs for scientists and engineers, from recent Ph.D. recipients to mid-career professionals, to learn about policy-making while contributing scientific expertise to the Federal Government. Thirty other scientific and engineering societies participate in the program, but select and fund their own fellows.
Dr. Leshner further mentioned that the Fellows, representing a cross-section of science and engineering fields, bring a common interest in learning about the interface of science and government, and a willingness to apply their technical training in a new arena. The host offices value the Fellows for their external perspectives and critical thinking skills, as well as for their technical expertise. Before beginning their fellowships, the Fellows participate in a comprehensive two-week orientation program, which is followed throughout the year with seminars that provide the opportunity to hear noted speakers on issues relating to science, technology and public policy. At the conclusion of the fellowship year, some Fellows remain in Washington, D.C. while other Fellows return to their previous positions. In 30 years, nearly 1,600 scientists and engineers have spent a year in Washington bringing good science to government decision-making through the various fellowship programs.
The first session, “Science, Technology and the Human Condition,” explored possible advances in science and technology over the next 30 years and highlighted societal impact and policy implications of scientific discovery and advances. The presentations reflected on issues such as bioethics, health, genomics, personal privacy and information technology to help ensure that the impact of science and technology is considered in advance of scientific discovery. The past 30 years have demonstrated that science and technology can alter our lives in many ways, some positive and some negative. In the session, potential problems and benefits of future scientific discovery were examined, as were ways to identify and minimize problems, and to maximize the benefits of advances in science and technology. The session explored the juncture of science, technology and humankind from both domestic and international perspectives.
Ms. Dee Perry, moderator, opened the session by noting that science and technology constitute the prism through which one can observe the shaping of the world for the better.
Dr. R. Alta Charo, Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development and Professor of Law and Bioethics at University of Wisconsin, discussed the role of government by quoting several examples, including health law, food and drug law, voting rights, environmental laws, abortion law and medical genetics. She enumerated several personal and social issues related to stem cell research, pornography and reproductive choices, which were adversely affected by public policy and regulations. Dr. Charo further observed that it is incumbent upon the scientific community to relate to the general public so that they should not fear the outcome of scientific discoveries.
Dr. Kenneth F. Schaffner, Professor of Medical Humanities and Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, gave a presentation on “Behaving: What is genetic and What is not, and Why should we care?” Dr. Schaffner discussed ethical and philosophical issues in human behavioral and psychiatric genetics (BPG).
Dr. Irving Wladawsky-Berger, Vice President, Technology and Strategy at IBM, discussed IBM’s next-generation Internet efforts in supercomputing and parallel computing, including the transformation of large commercial systems to parallel architectures. He further discussed IBM’s grid and autonomic computing efforts to make the Internet a self-managing, distributed computing platform capable of delivering computing services on demand. He defined autonomic computing as self-predicting, self-healing, self-optimizing and self-configuring.
The discussants were Dr. Patrick Hines, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Mr. Bruce Sterling, author, journalist, editor and critic. Dr. Hines expressed the hope that advanced research would lead to the use of single gene as an identifier of defects or diseases within the next 30 years.
On the second day of the Symposium, Dr. Albert Teich, Director, Science and Technology Programs, AAAS, made some opening remarks regarding the day’s agenda. Dr. Stephen Nelson, Associate Director, Science and Policy Programs, AAAS, then introduced Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Director, Library of Alexandria, Egypt.
Dr. Serageldin set the theme for the rest of the day by pointing out that scientific knowledge and the resulting technological applications are accumulating at an accelerating rate as a result of ever more powerful computers and lightning-fast communications. The international community, unfortunately, has given inadequate attention to the needs of capacity building in science and technology as the engine that drives knowledge-based development.
He noted that business-as-usual will leave an ever-growing gap between “have” and “have-not” nations in technological innovations. It is absolutely essential that developing nations strengthen their science and technology capacity. And they must do so soon, through their own efforts, and those of their friends. There is no time to waste if the majority of humanity is not to fall farther behind the developed countries. We, in the developed parts of the world, must bring the benefits of science and technology to every human being on the planet so that he or she too has a chance to live in dignity, comfort, health, and happiness.
The rest of the morning session was devoted to a panel addressing Science, Technology and Global Security. Dr. Joel Primack, Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, moderated the panel consisting of speakers Dr. Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs, Program on Science and Public Affairs, Princeton University; Dr. Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director, Strategy, Forces and Resources Division, Institute for Defense Analyses; Dr. Julie Fischer, Biological and Chemical Weapons Analyst, Henry L. Stimson Center; and Discussants Dr. Maureen McCarthy, Director, Office of Research and Development, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Dr. George Fidas, The Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University.
Dr. Primack picked up on Dr. Serageldin’s comments on the need to globalize science and technology by noting that science needs wise involvement in policy formulation. Most of all, he said, humanity needs to transition from an emphasis on growth to a sustainable relationship with the extent of resources worldwide.
Dr. von Hippel focused on nuclear terrorism by pointing out that high enriched uranium (HEU) might be coveted by terrorists. He urged for greater funding to convert research reactors from using HEU to using low enriched uranium, thereby removing a possible source of nuclear materials from terrorists. Dr. von Hippel also urged the AAAS to expand its Fellowship Program by creating an international component.
Dr. Utgoff followed by asking the question: What can humanity do to stop it from being destroyed by weapons of mass destruction? He answered saying that fewer nations have nuclear weapons than first projected in the middle of the last century. But more still needs to be done. He cites the need for: international agreements that creating weapons of mass destruction would be illegal; stronger action against proliferators; and increased emphasis on improving technologies for detecting unauthorized nuclear, chemical, and biological materials.
Dr. Fischer took the podium from Dr. Utgoff. Dr. Fischer examined the threat of global disease. She pointed out that infectious diseases primarily affect the developing world. In those countries these diseases can have a security impact through creating socioeconomic instability, weakening indigenous military, and possibly resulting in the spread to United States personnel abroad. Dr. Fischer said that measures needed to stem these diseases include: safe and adequate water and food, availability of effective medical treatment, maternal health and education, a comprehensive public health infrastructure, and a well-organized strategic framework. She noted that science and technology may contribute to improved worldwide health by: developing systems for global disease surveillance, providing low cost, rapid, robust, and acceptable disease screening and diagnostic equipment, and through improved vaccines and drug delivery systems.
Dr. McCarthy commented that the Department of Homeland Security has to develop three core science and technology capabilities: 1) awareness of the future threat; 2) deployment of countermeasures; and 3) exercise scientific leadership. This investment must be for decades not just for the short term. It must focus on people, infrastructure, and programs. She concluded by noting that we have had the shock to our systems and it is now time to make sure that it does not happen a second time.
Dr. Fidas concluded the morning’s agenda by discussing the impact of infectious diseases on human beings and national security. He stated that infectious diseases are a leading cause of death, accounting for a quarter to a third of all deaths worldwide. The spread of infectious diseases results from human behavior such as lifestyle choices, land-use patterns, increased trade and travel, and inappropriate use of antibiotic drugs. He argues that the infectious disease threat will complicate United States and global security over the next 20 years. Dr. Fidas concluded that these diseases will endanger United States citizens at home and abroad, threaten United States forces deployed oversees, and exacerbate social and political instability in key countries and regions in which the United States has significant interests.
The afternoon session had the topic of “Energy, Environment and Global Change.” The first of two panels to address this topic was moderated by Dr. Neal Lane, University Professor and Senior Fellow, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; and included as speakers Dr. Donald Boesch, President, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; and Dr. Mohamed El-Ashry, Former CEO and Chairman, The Global Environment Facility.
Dr. Lane began by quoting Dr. George Brown: “The path through the 21st Century cannot be an extension of the 20th Century.” Dr. Lane likened the energy issue to a “three body problem.” The three bodies are: science, policy, and politics. He pointed out that we can deal with science and policy but then there is politics. He sees energy as number one on the list of humanity’s top ten problems of the next 50 years – we are going to need two to three times the energy in 2050 – and where are we going to get it? The answer is unclear at this time but one point is sure and that is if there is any problem that science and technology should solve, it would be energy.
Dr. Lane introduced Dr. Boesch who addressed the topic of “Energy, Global Change, and the Future of Coastal Waters.” Dr. Boesch noted that United States ocean and coastal resources should be managed to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components, including human and non-human species and the environments in which they exist. This will make it necessary to define relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem, rather than political boundaries. He said that effective policies should be based on unbiased, credible, and up-to-date scientific information. Such an approach must have as its goal to enhance the Nation’s ability to observe, monitor, and forecast ocean and coastal conditions in order to better understand and respond to the interactions among oceanic, atmospheric, and terrestrial processes.
Next to speak was Dr. El-Ashry who spoke about the need to balance the pressures for growth with environmental concerns. He pointed out that there is a need to incorporate environmental issues into the broader agenda of poverty eradication and sustainable development. People of all nations, rich and poor alike, are experiencing the effects of ecosystem decline in one guise or another: from water shortages in India to soil erosion in Russia, to fish kills off the coast of North Carolina in the United States. Dr. El-Ashry concluded by stating that strong scientific programs are needed to move the global change agenda forward and that the public must put pressure on politicians to achieve these goals.
The final panel was moderated by Dr. David Rejeski, Director, Foresight and Governance Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, with speakers Dr. Theodore Gordon, Futurist and Management Consultant, and Dr. Mary Evelyn Tucker, Professor, Department of Religion, Bucknell University.
Dr. Rejeski introduced Dr. Gordon, who reviewed the results of the “Millennium Project – Future Issues in Science and Technology Management.” This study was designed to identify science and technology developments of importance in the next 25 years and how the evolution of these developments might be managed. The central objective of the study was to seek a broad range of international perspectives on the future of science and technology. Through a series of interviews based on a set of scenarios, the project concluded that spectrums of five science and technology management levels exist simultaneously at any point and the mix of these techniques controls the course of research. These levels are: global organizations, national advisory commissions, national agencies of government, the disciplines themselves, and individual researchers. He said that the study recommended an ongoing forecasting and risk assessment system to deal effectively with future developments in science and technology.
The last speaker on the panel was Dr. Evelyn Tucker. She noted that the environmental crisis is well-documented in its various interlocking manifestations of industrial pollution, resource depletion, and population explosion. Clearly religions need to be involved in the development of a more comprehensive worldview, along with ethics, to assist in reversing this trend. How to adapt religious teachings to this task of revaluing nature so as to prevent its destruction marks a significant new phase in religious thought. She concluded by saying that the time is right for a broad investigation of the contributions of particular religions to solving the ecological crisis, especially by developing a more comprehensive environmental ethic.
The day concluded with Dr. Alan Hoffman, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy introducing The Honorable Rush Holt, U.S. House of Representatives (D-New Jersey), and a 1982-1983 APS Congressional Fellow. Representative Holt, one of only two practicing physicists in the Congress, spent a few minutes reviewing the AAAS Fellowship Program. He noted that in the 30 years of the Program nearly 1,600 scientists and engineers have spent a year in Washington bringing good science to government decision-making. He ended by challenging the AAAS to grow and make the next 30 years infinitely better than the last.
Melvin Bernstein
Director of University Programs
Science and Technology Directorate
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(May 19, 2004)Topic: Linking University Research and Education to the DHS Mission
Serving as the Director of University Programs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Dr. Melvin Bernstein spoke briefly about the Department and then focused his remarks on its Science and Technology Directorate, where his office is located, and his mission. A materials scientist by training, he arrived at DHS in June 2003 through an IPA with Tufts University, where he was a Research Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. He expects to serve through June 2005.
DHS has been in existence for just over a year. Twenty-two federal agencies have been rolled in, presenting logistics and administrative systems challenges. The DHS strategic goals include awareness, prevention, protection, response and recovery. Describing the approach to homeland security issues as a “new take on national imperatives,” Dr. Bernstein pointed out the many that have been around for some time, such as drug interdiction, export controls and cybersecurity. More attention is also being given to biometrics and information-gathering.
DHS is looking to strengthen United States leadership in science and technology – both as an enabler and in interaction with other organizations. The science and technology (S&T) budget is about $1 billion out of the total DHS budget of $40 billion. At DHS, S&T refers to the entire cycle of research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), with threats and responses defining critical technology needs. The needs include critical infrastructure protection, border and transportation security, and chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear countermeasures.
Dr. Bernstein was asked to build a university program for DHS. The function falls within the Office of Research and Development under the Science and Technology Directorate. Dr. Bernstein has already spoken with 500 universities, mostly the engineering and political science departments, to assess capabilities – a way of “tapping the best of the best.” Dr. Bernstein has been involved in setting up university-based Homeland Security Centers of Excellence, which are mission-focused and targeted at research areas that leverage multidisciplinary capabilities. Essentially aimed at filling scientific and knowledge gaps, these centers will complement the project-focused research funded by the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, another organization within the Science and Technology Directorate.
There are currently three centers – University of Southern California with its focus on risk analysis and economic modeling, and Texas A&M University and the University of Minnesota, both with a focus on agricultural biosecurity. Dr. Bernstein expects additional centers to be established – more than six but less than ten. The centers are funded initially for a three-year period, which can be renewed.
Dr. Bernstein’s office has also established a Homeland Security Scholars and Fellows Program, which currently is limited to undergraduate and first-year graduate students. The first class has been announced. Out of some 2,500 applications, 100 students from disciplines such as engineering, math and computer science, and the life and physical sciences were selected. Dr. Bernstein expects to extend eligibility to post-doctoral students and expand the disciplines to include the humanities, such as religion. He pointed out that, since there’s no field called “homeland security,” there’s a need to create people sensitized to think about it.More information on the DHS can be found at: http://www.dhs.gov.
Visit to the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command
Fort Detrick, Maryland
(June 16, 2004)The ComSci Fellows were welcomed by the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), Major General Lester Martinez-Lopez, who gave the group an overview. To support the health and fighting ability of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, USAMRMC conducts programs in medical research, medical materiel development, medical logistics and facility planning, medical information systems, and development of new technologies to improve health care on the battlefield.
Speaking of his mission, Major General Martinez-Lopez, a physician, explained that people don’t usually associate the military with medical research. However, the United States armed forces go to places where they encounter diseases such as malaria. Of all the drugs in the world today used to fight malaria, only two are not the work of Fort Detrick. Clinical trials are conducted in places where the disease is found.
USAMRMC is in the “discovery business,” which means doing the early work and then letting industry produce the drug. Major General Martinez-Lopez pointed out that the focus is on finding solutions rather than advancing science. Most of the research is open source.
USAMRMC is engaged in a broad spectrum of activity – basic research in the laboratory, product acquisition, and the fielding and life cycle management of medical equipment and supplies for deploying units. The command focuses on pre-hospital trauma care – treating the wounded on the battlefield. USAMRMC has been in the forefront of telemedicine for the past ten years.
Major General Martinez-Lopez was followed by Colonel Gina Deutsch, Chief of Staff, who showed a video and gave the command briefing. There are about 5,000 employees working in the USAMRMC worldwide – one-third are contractors; one-third, military; and one-third, government civilians. The organization has $1.7 billion annual budget. Within this budget, $800 million is devoted to medical research in areas such as prostate and breast cancers. Grants are awarded to industry and academia. Submitted proposals are evaluated through a peer review process. The review panels consist of external peers, which include users, such as soldiers and patients.
Lieutenant Colonel Harry Slife, Director of the Medical Chemical and Biological Defense Research Program, gave an overview of the aspects of his program – intelligence, education and training, and medical and physical countermeasures. The program is threat and requirements driven. The goal is to produce a pharmaceutical product that will combat the effects of a toxic agent at the pretreatment, diagnostic or therapeutic stage. He described the medical research and development process as a conveyor belt, starting at the technology base and proceeding to discovery, development and production and deployment. Product or technology insertion can happen anytime. For example, a product already on the commercial market could be adapted to military use.
Colonel Erik Henchal, Commander of U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) gave a briefing on his program. His mission is to conduct basic and applied research on biological threats resulting in medical solutions to protect the war fighter. Biological agents include bacteria, virus, and toxins. USAMRIID is involved in the full spectrum of medical product development for biological defense – prevention, detection, and diagnosis and treatment. Colonel Henchal also talked about Biosurety, which includes security, safety, personnel reliability, and inventory management, and plans to build the national interagency biodefense campus at Fort Detrick, which will include agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Homeland Security.
In the afternoon, the ComSci Fellows visited the USAMRMC’s Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC). TATRC is charged with managing core and congressionally mandated advanced technology projects. Telemedicine reflects a convergence of technological advances in a number of fields, including medicine, telecommunications, space science, computer engineering, informatics, artificial intelligence, robotics, materials science, and perceptual psychology.
In the TATRC, Captain Ed McDonough, who had recently returned from a tour of duty in Baghdad, demonstrated some of the advanced computer and communications technologies used on the battlefield – all aimed at improving the standard of medical care. The Battlefield Medical Information System – Tactical (BMIS-T), a handheld electronic device, enables information to be captured at the point of care on the battlefield. Also, every soldier has an electronic dog tag in addition to a regular one. The electronic one – Personal Information Carrier (PIC) – is a portable storage card containing the soldier’s medical history. Battlefield medics and medical doctors are given various levels of access and functional capabilities for these electronic devices.
The ComSci Fellows were also shown the components of a combat support hospital – Forward Deployable Digital Medical Treatment Facility – which is designed for a 72-hour stay prior to a move to a regular medical facility. Each container of components must be lightweight enough so that a maximum of four soldiers can carry it. An intensive care unit is built into the patient’s litter. The wounded soldier can then be evacuated on this litter.
The day’s series of highly informative briefings ended with an overview of the Telemedicine and Advanced Medical Technology Program. The program’s goals are to improve joint medical readiness (pre-deployment), battlefield medical awareness (real-time), and effective employment of medical forces (care management). The program includes both basic and applied research. The five technical areas, or product lines, are information management/information technology, medical informatics, mobile medical technology, bioinformatics, and biosurveillance. Funding comes from a wide variety of sources, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Department of Homeland Security, Army and the Special Operations Command.
The USAMRMC website is: http://mrmc.detrick.army.mil. Information on TATRC can be found at: http://www.tatrc.org. The USAMRIID website is: http://www.usamridd.army.mil.
Mary Kavanaugh
Science, Technology, and Education Counselor
Delegation of the European Commission to the United States
(June 17, 2004)Topic: European Science and Technology Policy
Dr. Mary Kavanaugh spoke to the ComSci Fellows about European science and technology policy. A biologist by training, Dr. Kavanaugh is the Science, Technology, and Education Counselor with the delegation of the European Commission to the United States. Prior to coming to the United States in 2003; she was in the European Commission headquarters in Brussels for ten years.
Dr. Kavanaugh began her presentation with a brief introduction to the European Union (EU) and its history. She emphasized that each of the 25 individual countries of the EU funds their own science and technology (S&T) national policies and programs. She said that the joint cooperative programs of the EU are meant to complement those of individual countries. The EU should be involved where a regional effort could accomplish goals that individual countries could not.
Launched in 2002, the idea of a unified European research policy, the European Research Area (ERA), is meant to be a plan for the future of scientific research in Europe. It has broad support at the highest political, scientific and industrial levels. It involves input from national programs, framework organizations, and European organizations to develop a cooperative European research policy. The instruments for implementing this policy are the EU Framework Programmes, which are multiyear plans with specific described objectives. The First Framework Programme was begun in 1984, and the EU is currently in the sixth cycle, or Sixth Framework Programme, running from 2002 through 2007. The budget for individual programmes has increased from €3.27 billion to €17.5 billion (~ $ 21 billion). This can be compared to the current budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at $28 billion.
Dr. Kavanaugh described the three critical areas of the current framework programme: 1) focusing and integrating community research; 2) structuring the ERA; and 3) strengthening the foundations of the ERA. Under the first area, there are several research topics where there is added value of European scientists working together, and these are priority topics for funding cooperative research. These include topics such as genomics and biotechnology for health; nanotechnology, aeronautics and space, sustainable development and food quality and safety.
Under structuring of the ERA, there are topics emphasizing the importance of developing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with the goal that 15 percent of the budget should be spent on SMEs. Another item under this general area is on human resources, including scientist mobility grants, the Marie Curie Program. There is also a current emphasis on addressing science/society issues, with efforts to address the skepticism of the public through providing education and information to better understand science and the role it plays in modern life. Other major efforts are to educate and encourage young people to take up science as a career and to promote the advancement of women in science, especially in positions of higher management. All of these issues, of course, are being similarly addressed in the United States. The third area, strengthening the foundations of the ERA, includes coordination of the national activities of European countries and carrying out studies and benchmarking activities for scientific research efforts.
One of the new instruments being developed to carry out the ERA are Networks of Excellence. These networks are virtual research centers, where institutions working on similar research decide to combine efforts, instead of competing for increasingly scarcer resources. Such a network works on a broad research area. This is to be compared with another newly developed tool, the Integrated Project, which is not concerned with general research, but rather with specific research objectives. In both these cases, a consortium of at least three different countries is involved.
Dr. Kavanaugh discussed the issues of intellectual property rights (IPR) with the ComSci Fellows. She compared the treatment of IPR in the United States via the Bayh-Dole Act, where it is clear that the institution that receives federal money owns the results, to the European case, where in the 25 countries, there is not yet any single IPR regulation. It has been agreed that participants – individual institutions – in the Framework-funded projects own the results they have generated, and that any consortia that are funded must sign an agreement to this effect.
Dr. Kavanaugh also discussed some of the difficulties of developing research areas for the framework programmes. Some proposed research areas are controversial, and sometimes no agreement can be reached on including them in the Framework. One such topic is stem cell research, which was proposed to be included in the current Framework Programme, and which is adamantly opposed by several countries, including Italy, Austria, and Ireland. Although no decision was able to be taken and rather than hold up agreement on the Framework Program, it was finally agreed that during the first period, no projects involving stem cell research would be funded. Following this period, cases will be reviewed individually, with no single rule being applied.
A question regarding the mechanism for the evaluation of proposals was asked. Dr. Kavanaugh stressed that evaluations were taken very seriously, with a goal to be fair and transparent, and have clear criteria. The primary priority is for scientific excellence, but proposals are also judged for management capacity of the group, and the European added value. International panels are used, from a “European database,” which is generated both from Member States, who send in names of potential experts, and from individuals who propose themselves and send credentials. The Commission then selects appropriate experts, trying to achieve a mix of nationalities, men and women, and different ages. It was noted that an exchange between this EU “database,” and United States expert databases, such as that from NIH, would be very useful for both sides.
Dr. Kavanaugh concluded her discussions with the ComSci Fellows by telling them that there is currently a big push for industrial participation in the Framework Programme, with an emphasis on SMEs. The difference between EU efforts, and similar efforts in the United States, such as in the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, is that the EU does not fund individual companies, but rather consortia.
The website for EU research is: http://europe.eu.int/comm/research.
Masanobu Shinozuka
Distinguished Professor and Chair
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Irvine
(June 21, 2004)Topic: Homeland Security – Technologies Used to Detect Terrorist Activities and Protect Our National Civil Infrastructure
Dr. Masanobu Shinozuka’s research focuses on continuum mechanics, micromechanics, stochastic processes and fields, structural dynamics and control, and earthquake and wind engineering. He also studies systems engineering, with an emphasis on structural and system reliability; risk assessment of lifeline systems, including water, electrical power and transportation networks; and analysis of the socio-economic impacts of natural disasters. Dr. Shinozuka also is interested in advanced technologies, specifically remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) for disaster assessment and mitigation, smart materials and structures, and nondestructive evaluation. The applications for his work are in the earthquake engineering of buildings, bridges, and lifeline and environmental systems. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
The overall goal of Dr. Shinozuka’s work has been to develop risk-based economic models for the consequences of terrorism and improved preventive measures. The specific goals include: 1) generation of terrorist disaster scenarios, 2) assessment of infrastructure performance under disaster scenarios, 3) estimation of consequences and risk, learning from past disasters, 4) development and demonstration of risk-based economic models for consequences, and decision support systems for cost-benefit analysis of countermeasures and response actions, and 5) development of innovative education, training and communication technologies, and nurturing of talented individuals to pursue academic and research careers.
Why are the infrastructure systems important? Because infrastructure systems are distributed spatially and are the most vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Critical individual buildings could also be targeted by terrorists. The impact of lifeline failures could be far-reaching and disruptive to society. The most vulnerable systems are power systems, water systems and integrated water districts, highways and ports, and emergency medical facilities. Integrated multidisciplinary approaches are essential to prevent widespread lifeline failures. These approaches should include:
Dr. Shinozuka gave some examples of various applications areas. He first talked about power systems using examples such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) power system, the Southern California Edison (SCE) power system, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) grid, and the United States power grid. The LADWP’s transmission network handles 6,300 MW at peak hours for a population of 3.7 million. The WECC’s grid covers a network of 14 United States western states, 2 Canadian provinces and the northern part of Baja California. The United States power grid has more than 6,000 power plants, 500,000 miles of aboveground and underground transmission lines, 150 control area operators, and 3 main power grids. He then showed the impact of a number of previous blackouts using the disaster database. For example, he discussed the August 4, 2003 United States/Canada blackout that affected New York City, Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. Overall, 61,800 MW of load were lost, affecting 50 million people. Twenty-one power plants went off-line, including ten nuclear plants. The “cascading blackout” destabilized the entire Niagara-Mohawk power grid. This major blackout impacted transportation, shutting down airports, subways, commuter trains, and roadways. It also caused a slowdown of the Internet. “Boil-water” orders were issued and Lake Erie beaches were closed due to sewage overflow. There was also an increase in trips to the emergency room in New York City hospitals due to intestinal illness related to the consumption of spoiled food.
- Preparedness planning, involving systems analysis for vulnerable assessment, retrofit and rehabilitation, and monitoring for system integrity; and
- Emergency planning, using remote sensing, data fusion, and real-time collection of data.
Regarding water systems applications, Dr. Shinozuka discussed several existing systems, including the LADWP’s water system and the municipal water district of southern California. The LADWP’s water system services 3.5 million people with 12,000-km of distribution and trunk pipelines, and includes a 1200-square km service area. He also discussed examples from the experience disaster database, such as the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake (magnitude 6.6), which resulted in trunkline damage in 74 LADWP locations, and 1,013 locations of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) needing repairs. Another example was a 108-year-old water main that ruptured in New York City on October 16, 2003, and inundated two city blocks, flooding cars and basements, and closed off a stretch of the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
Dr. Shinozuka also showed transportation applications. Existing systems include the transportation network at street level, the Caltran freeway network in Los Angeles and Orange County, and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in California. He showed examples from the disaster database of a bridge rebuilt on a fast track, following a devastating crash that caused the collapse of a high-traffic bridge in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. The bridge was back in operation 53 days later. He showed a table in the Federal Emergency and Management Agency format of the cost-benefit analysis on new construction versus retrofit costs. A table of the estimation of loss due to drivers’ delay (based on network analysis) was presented. The loss due to drivers’ delay without retrofit was significant ($56 million versus $6 million).
Finally, Dr. Shinozuka talked about medical facilities and public health applications, in an effort led by the University of California at Irvine (UCI), along with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, the Orange County Emergency Medical System (EMS), and the Los Angeles County EMS. The key tasks relating to medical facilities are:
- scenario development with the consideration of significant impacts on health, such as those associated with explosives or chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological (CBNR) weapons;
- development of medical system performance criteria in terms of hospital surge capacity, including indicators such as available personnel and medical supplies;
- performance modeling for the prediction of scenario-related health hazards, estimate of economic and social losses by developing a library of injury models relating exposure to injury type;
- building on previous modeling efforts; and
- review of epidemiological and other approaches for estimating the value of human life.
Dr. Shinozuka stated that UCI is the only academic medical center serving Orange County, California (2.8 million people). The center has a Level I trauma center, burn center, emergency medical services paramedic base hospital and teaching center, and a comprehensive 24-hour emergency department. The UCI medical center has experience and expertise in disaster medicine, public health, emergency medical services, medical informatics, toxicology, trauma and burn management, and health services. It also has disaster experience in community disaster planning and management, medical disaster response, community and hospital bioterrorism surveillance, and hospital and health care capacity in disaster response situations.
More information can be found at: http://shino8.eng.uci.edu/Homeland_Security.htm
Class of 2002-2003
Ruth Greenspan Bell
Director, Program for International Institutional Development and Environmental Assistance
Resources for the Future
(October 2, 2002)Topic: Environmental Policy for Developing Countries
Ms. Ruth Bell is an attorney with considerable experience with issues related to environmental policy for developing countries. Her talk outlined the reasons why sophisticated environmental control tools, such as market-based emissions credit trading, may not be the most appropriate strategy for improving environmental quality in developing countries.
While there has been much progress in improving environmental policy in North America, Western Europe, and Japan over the past 30 years, this has not been the case in the developing world. Improvements have been made over the past ten years in some of the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, but much remains to be done. Much of this has to do with cultural and legal differences that divide the developed and the developing world, though, of course, disparities in wealth are also important. Thus, policy instruments that might be useful in a wealthy developed country may not work as well in a developing nation.
Environmental regulation succeeds in the developed world because the rule of law works. There is also what is known as a "culture of compliance;" the regulated entities for the most part obey the law, and enforcement action is focused on outliers. Even so, the policy instruments used for environmental protection involve a mix of approaches. These include mandatory discharge limits, adoption of specific environmental control technology, fees and fines, and emissions trading. Market-based emissions trading is one of the more recent innovations, and its introduction has been only partially successful in the United States.
Market-based tools such as emissions trading appear to work under the following conditions:
(1) The presence or threat of mandatory environmental controls allows industry to know the real cost of compliance. Thus, industries know how to properly value emissions credits and the market can fix a fair price;
(2) The availability of real-time monitoring of emissions, so that the emissions traded are tied to actual emissions in the field;
(3) Transparency in the transactions, so that all of the stakeholders and the public know who is trading with whom; and
(4) Significant legal and regulatory safeguards to ensure that these trades are trades of real emissions and that the overall emissions caps are maintained.
Making such a system work requires a society with familiarity with how the market system works, and a legal system that can ensure the integrity of the trades. Even then, these market-based tools have not always worked. In one recent example, a NOx trading emission credit market in New Jersey was recently suspended on the basis of allegations of false accounting.
In developing countries, these market-based tools may not always be the most appropriate approach for pollution management. Many of these countries don’t have strong environmental regulatory agencies, a culture of compliance with the law, mechanisms in place to ensure transparency and integrity in market deals, and sufficient economic resources to invest in the advanced technology real-time monitoring of emissions. In some cases, responsibility for environmental monitoring is combined with responsibility for resource management, a merging of functions that encourages corruption. Yet despite these problems, the development-aid community has insisted on making market-based instruments the primary management tool for environmental control.
Ms. Bell believes that suggestions from the aid community should not be controlled by ideology or current fads among economists. Rather, they should incorporate a flexible array of regulatory instruments that build on what currently works, which set realistic goals, and which make steady progress toward the ultimate goal of clean air, water, and land that are necessary for any country to prosper.
Her presentation pointed out the need to backup market-based solutions to environmental issues with effective measures for checking on everyone’s integrity. Or, as President Reagan liked to quote, "Trust, but verify."
Arthur L. Caplan
Director, Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania
(October 9, 2002)Topic: Ethical Issues of New Technology
Dr. Arthur Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics of the University of Pennsylvania, delivered a lively and thought-provoking presentation that touched on the ethical implication of advances being made in a wide array of biomedical subject areas including cloning, biodefense, reproductive health, and death.
Dr. Caplan opened the discussion by describing his background and interests and how he got involved in the field of bioethics. In addition to serving on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, he has been the Director of the Center of Bioethics and the Chief of the Division of Bioethics for the University’s Medical Center since 1994. The Center supports a dynamic program made up of faculty members representing the disciplines of medicine, philosophy, theology, the social sciences, and patent law. The graduate program currently includes approximately 15 percent of the medical students. Most recently, he helped to establish the first Department of Medical Ethics in this country. In the University of Pennsylvania program, medical students learn about topics such as the definition of death, the ethics around genetic testing, and how to deal with clinical ethical issues. The Center places a strong focus on education and outreach, providing information and access with the help of the Internet to both the public and the media. (The Center’s website can be found at www.bioethics.net.) Partnerships are also being developed to foster support for a standardized bioethics curriculum for high school students. As the Center’s Director, Dr. Caplan’s opinion is routinely sought on scientific and medical ethic issues.
Dr. Caplan has served on several committees including the Hastings Committee, a think tank that publishes the Hastings Center Report, a key ethics journal; the Department of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood Safety; and most recently, on the United Nations Committee for Human Cloning. He shared anecdotes from his experience with these committees.
To distinguish the practical field of bioethics with its focus on medicine and the biological sciences from pure ethics and/or politics, Dr. Caplan described a model, which uses four key questions to help in formulating an ethical analysis. He used case scenarios to outline the series of fundamental questions that should be asked typically for each bioethics case encountered. What are the facts? What are the value issues? What are the ethical concerns around an issue? How can agreement be reached by using existing areas of consensus? He also suggested that considerations be made in looking at the law, religion, and philosophy for existing traditions. He stressed that only as a last resort should someone seek to establish a new principle.
As an example, he walked through the cloning debate and how the United Nations Committee for Human Cloning used this process to come to consensus:
(1) What are the facts? Cloning isn’t purely a human activity. In assessing the facts, the Committee agreed that clones in fact exist in nature as either identical twins or twinned animals that have been produced for medical research.
(2) What are the value issues? The difference with the cloning of Dolly was that an adult cell was used in creating the clone (as compared to an embryonic cell), thus, this procedure was "turning back" an adult gene’s internal clock. Most societies do not support creating new life outside of normal reproduction and value the ability of individuals to have a choice in being reproduced.
(3) What are the ethical issues? Reproduction through cloning raises safety questions and Dr. Caplan pointed out that, in fact, only 1 in 500 clones developed into fetal sheep. In addition, those clones that did survive grew to develop tumors and aged abnormally. Thus, you can conclude that Dolly is not normal and old DNA does not appear to be safe. Because of this, several risk questions must be considered before one attempts to clone a human, including the risk of creating an unhealthy human, the risk to the surrogate mother, and the risk to the egg donor.
(4) How do you reason out from areas of consensus? Dr. Caplan stated that all members agreed that genetic manipulation should only be done by permission. All members support the premise that you don’t reproduce without consent.
Based on these considerations, the Committee endorsed an international ban on human cloning.
Dr. Caplan fielded a variety of questions that enabled him to interject more ethics considerations into the equation. Stimulating discussion ensued on such topics as biodefense research; the stem cell research debate; the balance between voluntary and mandatory vaccinations; the appropriate role of the Federal Government in biomedical issues such as reproductive technologies being practiced by the in vitro fertilization industry; the potential use of information generated from genome projects; and the definition of human life versus permanent vegetative state. In a number of cases, Dr. Caplan pointed to the need for a legal framework and suggested the potential role to be played by the Federal Government.
Asha M. George
Senior Program Officer for Biological Programs
Nuclear Threat Initiative
(October 23, 2002)Topic: Bioterrorism in the 21st Century
Dr. Asha George delivered an enlightening and thought-provoking presentation on the prevention of bioterrorism. She began by mentioning that bioterrorism dates back to the 13th Century when bodies of plague-infected victims were catapulted over the city walls during the Tatar siege of Kaffa.
Reflecting on the historical use of disease as a weapon, Dr. George emphasized the importance of thinking about the bioterrorism threat in the context of infectious disease. Disease weapons, she noted, are different in important ways from other weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs or chemical weapons. Among their more nightmarish qualities, they: (1) can be incredibly lethal, comparable to or worse than nuclear blasts; (2) can be developed with relatively cheap materials that are easily disguised because they have benign, "dual-use" applications; (3) can be used in a way that is difficult to trace to the actual perpetrators; and (4) are well-adapted to the "asymmetrical warfare" of terrorism.
In the United States, offensive biological warfare research programs were started in the 1940s. These programs remained active until the late 1960s. Since then, world leaders and private organizations, such as the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private organization founded in January 2001 by CNN founder Ted Turner and former Senator Sam Nunn, have been dedicated to reducing risks and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Today, global concerns about bioterrorism have heightened awareness. In addition to technical journal and newspaper articles, it is becoming common to see biological warfare issues depicted in political satire comics as well. This is a definite indication of how public awareness and sensitivity to the topic is increasing.
Various records show that 12 countries currently possess biological weapons capabilities. These countries are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Libya, Egypt, Russia, China, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, and India. Of growing concern surrounding the possession of these capabilities are their intended use, security, proper containment, and disposal. Dr. George emphasized that since the threat of a biological or chemical attack exists throughout the world at variable and unknown levels, efforts should be directed toward the prevention and deterrence of use. Fairly administered prevention and deterrence methods are key.
The fact that all bioscience-related research can be destructive and dangerous remains a serious matter. Government and private organizations continue to struggle with the amount of information that is readily available on the subjects of bioterrorism and biological weapons. The amount, completeness, and accuracy of the information available to the general public are astounding. Today, we live in a world where technology makes obtaining information extremely convenient and easy. The Internet is a vast data bank of information that contributes to the continued existence and capability of biological threats. While knowing this, no entity (private or governmental) wants to prevent the use of this information for legitimate research and science progression. Intent and intended application are key. Today, we still lack the identification of one responsible government agency to be solely responsible for distinguishing what types of bioterrorism-related research are legitimate.
In 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) compared nuclear and biological weaponry to assess their potential for destruction in terms of possible casualties. According to OTA, a one-megaton hydrogen bomb detonated in Washington, D.C., could destroy 570,000 to 1,900,000 lives, whereas 100kg of anthrax powder could kill one to three million people. Clearly, bioterrorism has the potential to cause tremendous carnage.
The U.S. Government must address the gap between the threat of biological warfare/terrorism and domestic preparedness. Terminology and differing definitions associated with terrorism and biological warfare play a large part in the struggle to create policy and regulation and to educate the public. A tremendous amount of work still remains to be done in order to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of various government agencies, especially with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security.
With a background that includes stints as an intelligence officer during Desert Storm and as a Special Forces Para trooper, Dr. George has a notable talent for presenting the issues of apocalypse in a clear, concise, and thoughtful manner.Site Visit to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.
(October 30, 2002)One of the first, lasting impressions of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) is that large sums of money can take up a lot of space. The case in point is a drying room with shipping skids stacked over four feet high with uncut sheets of dollar bills. The piles are impressive, but what’s sobering is that the face value of each skid (called a "tank") is only about $640,000. If they’d been double sawbucks (twenties), the entire skid would still come in at under $13 million.
Which makes one wonder about those spy thrillers where the character is supposed to be toting around in an attaché case, the $5- or $10-million ransom money for the secret virus. What denomination bills are they using?
Torrential fall rains ushered us into the Bureau’s printing facility at 14th and C Streets in Washington, D.C. Perversely handsome in a 19th-Century-Industrial sort of way, the Washington establishment (together with its sister plant in Fort Worth, Texas) is perhaps the most exclusive print shop in the world. It handles, of course, the exclusive line of U.S. Government bank notes, but also prints a number of other specialty items -- postage stamps for the United States Postal Service, hand engraved invitations for the White House, and sundry documents for other government agencies.
Printing United States bank notes is a complex and exacting process, and the BEP takes justifiable pride in the product. And interestingly enough, BEP employees -- and the Treasury -- don’t consider their product "money." Rather it’s a very specialized print job done for the Federal Reserve Banks, and not until the notes pass into the Federal Reserve System do they become "money."
The process begins with high-quality cotton-linen currency paper, which since 1879 has been provided by Crane & Company of Dalton, Massachusetts. Starting with recycled blue jeans and underwear -- at least, to hear BEP staff tell it -- Crane blends the fibers to achieve what it claims as the most durable currency paper in the world. Even at that, the United States $1 note has a combat life expectancy of only about 22 months, and the $5 note’s lifespan is only about 24 months. As a result, on any given day, you’re most likely to find the BEP’s presses turning out $1 bills.
Giant high-speed rotary presses -- made in Europe -- print the basic notes in two passes using high-pressure intaglio printing, the same process used for fine art etchings. The reverse is printed in green ink, allowed to dry for up to two days, and then the obverse is printed in black.
After the black ink dries (another stretch in the drying room), the 32-note sheets are cut in half and sent to an overprinting room where the appropriate Federal Reserve District seal and code is printed in black, and the U.S. Treasury seal and individual serial number is printed in green. You can have fun searching your wallet for notes with a star following the serial number. Star notes come from special sheets of currency that are dropped into the process after the serial numbers are printed to replace sheets that are rejected for poor quality.
Quality is an obsession at BEP. The intaglio printing process may date to the 15th Century or earlier, but BEP is on the cutting-edge of automated quality control procedures. The sheets are checked for printing errors after every major step in the process. Before the sheets go to the overprinting stage, high resolution digital cameras image both sides of each sheet, automatically compare the images to a stored image of an ideal sheet, and toss rejects on a pile to be destroyed. The entire digital inspection happens on-line, as the sheets are being stacked, and happens faster than the eye can follow.
The BEP may employ high-tech image inspection equipment, but they also understand the proverb "Trust. But verify." At the very end of the process, after all the presses have finished, and currency has been inspected multiple times, diced into individual bills, gathered into "units" of a hundred bills and banded -- at the very end of a long row of automated machinery, a single trusted human inspector sits on a stool randomly selecting bundles of bank notes and riffling them one last time to look for errors.
The BEP is staffed with serious people doing a seriously good job, but the Bureau is not without a certain institutional sense of whimsy, which comes out in the gift shop. There you can buy small bags of shredded money, notepads made from recycled currency, and "lucky" $1 bills for the Chinese trade. These are uncirculated bills (in handsome presentation folders) that have lucky serial numbers according to Chinese principles of arithmancy -- bills beginning with "8888" for good fortune or "168," the combination meaning "prosperity forever." Each $1 good-luck note retails for $5.95. Do the math. Did we mention that the BEP is a self-funded agency?
Alfred R. Berkeley III
Vice Chairman
NASDAQ Board of Directors
(November 6, 2002)Topic: How Science and Research Affect the Economy and NASDAQ
Mr. Alfred Berkeley was appointed Vice Chair of the NASDAQ Stock Market, Incorporated on July 27, 2000 after serving as NASDAQ President since 1996. Previously, he was Managing Director and Senior Banker in the Corporate Finance Department of Alex, Brown & Sons, Incorporated, where he financed computer software and electronic commerce companies.
In 1961, Congress authorized the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct a study of fragmentation in the over-the-counter market. The SEC proposed automation as a possible solution and charged the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) with it implementation.
On February 8, 1971, NASDAQ began trading. NASDAQ surpassed the New York Stock Exchange in annual share volume in 1994, and in 1999, it became the largest stock market in the United States by dollar volume, repeatedly breaking share and dollar volume records. In June of 1999, NASDAQ signed an agreement in Tokyo with Softbank Corporation, jointly capitalizing a new company called NASDAQ Japan. This proved to be the first leg in NASDAQ's global strategy to link Asian markets with European and American markets. In 2000, NASD membership voted overwhelmingly to restructure the organization and spun off NASDAQ into a shareholder-owned, for-profit company. NASDAQ continues to build capacity for the trading volumes of tomorrow, with a capacity to trade 6 billion shares a day, a ten-fold increase since 1997.
NASDAQ differs from the venerable New York Stock Exchange, according to Mr. Berkeley, in that the NYSE was patterned after the European "bourse" model, which in turn derived from ancient craft guilds. It is designed to preserve monopolies -- in this case, trading monopolies. NASDAQ, on the other hand, is modeled more after the international currency markets, highly diversified, and highly decentralized.
Rather than forcing investors to go through a single financial firm to buy or sell stocks, NASDAQ links up a variety of competitors and lets participants choose with whom they are going to trade. Any number of companies, large or small, may trade on NASDAQ and compete on an equal basis with NASDAQ giants such as Intel, Microsoft, and MCI. Key to its market structure is a core group of financial firms called market makers. More than 500 market making firms trade on NASDAQ, acting as distributors for NASDAQ-listed securities. Also known as dealers, market makers are unique in that they commit their own capital to NASDAQ-listed securities then turn around and re-distribute the stock as needed. By being willing to buy or sell stock using their own funds, market makers add liquidity to NASDAQ's market, ensuring that there are always buyers and sellers for NASDAQ-listed securities, and enabling trades to be filled quickly and efficiently.
As the world's largest electronic stock market, NASDAQ is not limited to one central trading location. Rather, trading is executed through NASDAQ's sophisticated computer and telecommunications network, which transmits real-time quote and trade data to more than 1.3 million users in 83 countries. Without size limitations or geographical boundaries, NASDAQ's "open architecture" market structure allows a virtually unlimited number of participants to trade in a company's stock. Today, NASDAQ lists the securities of nearly 4,100 of the world's leading companies, and each year, continues to help hundreds of companies successfully make the transition to public ownership.
Mr. Berkeley offered several cautionary notes. The United States, he argued, was rapidly losing ground in banking and finance to skilled foreign interests, such as the Deutsches Bank, which is "working on world financial hegemony." The United States, said Mr. Berkeley, is reaching the point where it will have to abandon populist laws on banking regulation if it expects to survive in a competitive international market.
As for rationality in the market, Mr. Berkeley said, there are always three games going on simultaneously: the game of chance, played by day traders; the game of skill, played by professional traders; and the long-term game of strategy. Only about five to ten percent of the transactions in the market have anything to do with investing -- the game of strategy. The vast middle ground belongs to the "skill" players who are simply trying to guess what the herd will do. "The Market as a mathematical model," observed Mr. Berkeley, "looks pretty much like a herd of wildebeests on the Serengeti."
Finally, Mr. Berkeley was asked about the reasons for the information technology and Internet market downturn. In his opinion, the Internet bubble was speculation-based and promised a new cost curve, which was not based on true deliverables. Regarding the challenges associated with globalization of the stock market, Mr. Berkeley pointed out that different countries have different investment challenges and philosophies. For example, in Europe, only a few companies control the market. Markets in Israel prefer performance and not prestige. India follows a safety-based approach. He believes that the United States equity-based model is more practical than the debt-based model used in other countries. Further, the laws and regulations for investor protection do not exist in several countries making trading difficult. In conclusion, Mr. Berkeley stressed the importance of technological innovation for advancement of global economy.
Jack Sobel
Senior Director, Ecosystem Protection Program
The Ocean Conservancy
(November 20, 2002)Topic: The Health of Our Oceans
Mr. Jack Sobel began his talk by mentioning the recent oil spill in Spain. He said that oil spills get the headlines, but such events typically have little lasting impact on the ocean. Conversely, long-term changes to the oceans are more profound and many have been influenced by technology.
Technological advances in fishing gear and boat refrigeration have made it possible for historically rich fishing areas such Georges Bank to be threatened by overfishing. It was once thought that areas such as Georges Bank had inexhaustible fish resources. That thinking no longer prevails. Until the 1990s, very few marine species were included in the "Red List" of threatened plants and animals. In 1996, a large number of marine species were added to the "Red List" maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource. While the listing was controversial, Mr. Sobel said, the results were worrying. Somewhere between 50 and 100 United States species were listed as ranging from "vulnerable" to extinct, including some common fishery fish such as cod and haddock.
Mr. Sobel provided a number of facts about our oceans. The United States manages an ocean territory of 4.1 million square miles -- nearly 20 percent larger than our land area. While our land is both privately and publicly owned, our ocean area is entirely a public resource. As a Nation, we are protecting nearly 30 percent of our most spectacular lands by establishing national monuments, national parks, national forests, and national wildlife refuges. Nearly five percent are fully protected as wilderness, and cannot be changed or altered by logging, mining, drilling, or development. According to Mr. Sobel, marine protected areas account for less than 1 percent of United States marine waters.
Ocean management in the United States reflects a lack of unity, leadership, and vision. Jurisdiction over our ocean resources has been split among a number of federal and state agencies with different -- and, at times -- conflicting mandates. Congress, moreover, has enacted a series of federal statutes that vest different federal agencies with responsibility for overseeing specific areas or marine resource extraction, or other activities. The lack of a unifying federal agency or authority is in part responsible for our disjointed approach to ocean management. Multiple agencies with conflicting visions cannot effectively protect marine resources.
After a spirited question and answer session, Mr. Sobel showed a video about marine reserves. He believes that marine reserves are only part of the solution to the problems plaguing oceans, but they can be effective, increasing fish populations, average size, and breeding rate. Although he spent much of his time discussing negative impacts that can be caused by fishing, he also mentioned coastal development and pollution as major contributing factors in the decline of our oceans.
An intriguing new option for marine reserves, Mr. Sobel said, is the concept of a "network" reserve. Rather than fence off a large section of coast or ocean in a traditional marine reserve, some scientists believe the same effect can be achieved by a network of much smaller reserve areas that are carefully selected to protect key areas in the life cycle of target species. It requires being able accurately to predict the movement of fish and other aquatic species.
The California Fish and Game Commission recently approved a plan to create such a network of marine reserves off the coast of California. The joint state and federal plan will ultimately protect nearly 25 percent of the waters in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, creating the largest marine reserve network in the continental United States. It will provide the greatest chance of survival for both the marine resources and the industries dependent upon them.
The Channel Islands' Marine Reserve will provide refuge for the many fish and wildlife species whose populations have been declining dramatically, some by more than 90 percent. Giant sea bass, sheepshead, sharks, and rockfish are some of the most affected fish. The Channel Islands have been designated as a National Park, a National Marine Sanctuary, and a United Nations Biosphere Reserve because of their beauty and spectacular diversity of life. Yet before the action by the California Fish and Game Commission, less than one percent of the sanctuary was off-limits to fishing.
In concluding his talk, Mr. Sobel distributed copies of a recently published report by the Ocean Conservancy called the Health of the Oceans. Health of the Oceans is a yearly assessment of ocean resources and ocean management. In many cases, the news is not good. Pollution has rendered 44 percent of United States estuaries unfit for uses such as swimming and fishing. Numerous species of marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds are in danger of extinction. The status of over two-thirds of our fish stocks is unknown. Clearly, as a Nation we have not performed well in managing these resources.
In its report, the Ocean Conservancy has suggested solutions, and ways that individuals, communities, and lawmakers can work together to reverse the failing health of the oceans. The Ocean Conservancy believes that our oceans can only be as healthy as an informed public demands.
Site Visit to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD
(December 4, 2002)The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) may not yet have quite the name recognition of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but it’s getting there and during a day-long visit, our NIST hosts demonstrated why.
The oldest of the "national laboratories," NIST was established as the National Bureau of Standards in 1901 when the economic importance of reliable national measurement standards was becoming increasingly clear. It was conceived from the start as a "neutral" partner to United States science and industry, an advisory agency without regulatory powers. Although its role as custodian of the national standards of physical measurement -- the meter, second, volt and so on -- gave it a certain amount of automatic authority, the new bureau soon built its reputation and influence on excellence in research.
The modern NIST underwent a major transformation in 1989 when its name was changed by congressional authorization, and its duties expanded to include not only the existing eight science and technology research laboratories and services, but also three dramatically new functions:
(1) the Baldrige National Quality Program, which promotes performance excellence in U.S. manufacturing and service organizations and manages the highly respected Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award;
(2) the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which co-funds and coordinates a nationwide network of local centers to provide technology assistance to small and mid-sized manufacturers; and
(3) the Advanced Technology Program, an industrial research and development (R&D) program that co-funds with industrial sponsors innovative technology development projects that have the potential for important economic benefits to the United States.
Our visit began with a quick tour of the exhibits in NIST’s visitor center and an overview briefing by Dr. Arden Bement, Director of NIST. Organizationally, NIST is an agency of the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration. NIST had an operating budget around $720 million in 2002 (counting revenues from fees), employs more than 3,200 researchers, technicians, and support staff, and hosts about half again as many visiting researchers from universities, industries, and other research institutions both American and foreign. NIST has two major facilities, the headquarters and main labs in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and an additional lab complex in Boulder, Colorado.
NIST’s international reputation rests on the technical expertise of its labs, such as the Center for Neutron Research, which was the first stop on our tour. NIST has operated a small research nuclear reactor (basically a source of neutrons) since the 1960s, but the facility really came into its own in the 1990s when the agency modified and expanded it to create a world-class cold neutron research facility. Cold (low-energy) neutrons have emerged as one of the premier tools of materials and biological research, and the NIST center is the most versatile, well instrumented such facility in the country. Used annually by more than 1,700 researchers from companies, universities, and other agencies, the center supports research in a broad array of areas including superconductivity, basic physics, polymer science, archeology, biotechnology, and even the formulation of stronger concrete.
Radiation is also a tool for the NIST Physics Laboratory, as we learned at the next stop, which highlighted the agency’s traditional role of providing calibrations to assure the accuracy of the Nation’s measurement system. Among its other duties, the Physics Laboratory provides the accurate radioactivity measurements necessary to assure the safety and efficacy of a variety of radiation therapies. We saw the tiny basement laboratories where the radioactive "seeds" used to treat prostate cancer and to prevent the re-closing of arteries after angioplasty are calibrated. NIST expertise in radiation is occasionally pressed into use for national security, as when the agency advised the White House and the U.S. Postal Service on the appropriate amount of radiation to ensure that harmful pathogens in the mail are neutralized.
Nanotechnology is today what plastics were to The Graduate, and industry’s drive to develop and exploit both materials and devices structured on the level of individual atoms or molecules require NIST to push measurement capabilities to new heights, depths -- or whatever -- of smallness. One place where this happens is the Surface and Microanalysis Science Division in NIST’s Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, where researchers are using ions, photons, and electrons as sensitive probes both to measure physical and chemical characteristics of small groups of atoms on surfaces and to better understand how working at the scale of just a handful of atoms affects both their physical properties and chemical behavior.
The latest ornament to NIST’s research capabilities isn’t yet complete, so we were given an unusual work-in-progress hardhat tour of the new NIST Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML). When it opens in 2004, the AML will be one of the world’s best facilities for precision measurement, with laboratory temperature controlled to within a tenth of a degree in some cases, humidity to within a percent, and vibration in some places to less than three micrometers per second. Meeting those specs and others required careful planning and design, and the new facility will include two wings built entirely underground to help isolate them from changes in temperature and vibration.
Our day concluded with two presentations that emphasized how NIST’s role has expanded to meet national concerns. The September 2001, terrorist attack on New York City brought to center stage NIST’s long experience in fire and building research. NIST was assigned to conduct a detailed scientific study of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers to provide a basis for improved building and fire codes and practices, as well as to provide better guidance for emergency personnel in responding to major building disasters.
As an outgrowth of that effort, in October 2002, the National Construction Safety Team Act was signed into law. The Act gave NIST authority similar to that of the National Transportation Safety Board to assemble quick-response teams of experts to investigate major building disasters; to establish the likely technical cause of building failures; to evaluate the procedures used for evacuation and emergency response; and if necessary, to recommend specific changes to building codes, standards and practices, and any necessary research, or other appropriate actions, needed to improve the structural safety of buildings.
The 1989 Act that gave NIST its new name also gave it one of its most controversial programs, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). Often mischaracterized as the "civilian DARPA," the ATP was designed to advanced United States economic competitiveness by spurring industry to undertake path-breaking, high-risk R&D by providing cost-shared federal grants to offset to increased risk. The ATP has been criticized as a government attempt to lead industry (although the project ideas come from industry, not government) and as "corporate welfare" for big business (although nearly 60 percent of ATP projects are led by small businesses). With its funding often in doubt, the ATP has nevertheless managed a string of technical successes, including the development of the DNA analysis chips that have played a central role in modern biotechnology research, new manufacturing technologies for the semiconductor and automobile industries, and a suite of new technologies that has been credited with "saving" the United States printed-wiring-broad industry.
John J. Hamre
President and Chief Executive Officer
Center for Strategic and International Studies
(December 18, 2002)Topic: Science and Security at Risk
Dr. John Hamre has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) since January 2000. He has also served on the Senate Armed Services Committee staff and as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense. At CSIS, he directs a small, nonpartisan group of independent scholars and analysts who partner with outside organizations in need of analysis of Washington policy issues. The CSIS mission is threefold: (1) to develop policy solutions for international and national security; (2) to develop new methods of governance for the 21st Century; and (3) to analyze regional dynamics for a better understanding of world political, economic, and security policy issues.
In recent years, CSIS has partnered with:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) -- CSIS assessed security policy after alleged breaches in security at DOE laboratories. Dr. Hamre shared his opinion that DOE's "zero tolerance" rule exacerbated the problem by establishing an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. CSIS's recommended that DOE attempt to establish an environment of trust through organizational change and a streamlined chain of command. This incident prompted CSIS to stop accepting government funds for studies, which allows the government to control the disposition of the results.
Johns Hopkins University -- CSIS helped run the "Dark Winter" scenario, designed to develop a suitable policy for distribution of smallpox vaccines in limited supply. Dr. Hamre explained why experts believe that smallpox is the most likely weapon in the bioterror arsenal: it has been weaponized, it is highly contagious, and there is very little protection against a smallpox infection, with no effective therapy and a 30 percent fatality rate.
The National Academy of Sciences -- the two organizations are working with science journals on security procedures for publishing scientific results.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security -- CSIS is working to develop a viable post-9/11 security policy.
Dr. Hamre's presentation focused on the process and problems of developing effective policies for protecting science and scientific ideas in the current global environment. The old notions of "security" dating from World War II depended heavily on geographic and ethnic boundaries, he observed, something that was not particularly bright then, and has become increasingly useless in the modern world. Today's diverse and complex threats make "security" more difficult than in the days of a well-defined threat from Communist regimes.
According to Dr. Hamre, the biggest challenge for establishing effective security practice is communication, understanding, and teamwork between scientists and security personnel. Because the security team does not understand the science, they don't know what to protect or how best to protect it; and because scientists don't understand how security works, they tend to view security policy as stifling the scientific enterprise.
Ultimately, both sides need to take more responsibility. Scientists need to practice constructive, not destructive, censorship. Without self-censorship they invite government intervention. This intervention has and could lead to: (1) limited access of foreign scientists to United States scientific meetings; (2) fear of government criticism and loss of government grant support resulting in a decline in scientific publication; and (3) invocation of a deemed export rule to limit flow of scientific information out of this country. Security personnel, for their part, must learn that you have to trust some people. Because security personnel don't understand the degree of political risk in complex scientific decisions, security policy implemented without input from the scientists will be symbolic rather than sensible.
Only with dialogue between these two groups can we identify what constitutes genuine risk and develop workable ground rules to protect it. This will be the major battleground in development of effective security policy for protection of science in the 21st Century.
Richard H. L. Marshall
Principal Deputy Director
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office
U.S. Department of Commerce
(January 8, 2003)Topic: Protecting the Nation's Infrastructure
The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) helps coordinate the development of the Administration's national strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection to address threats to the Nation's communications and electronic systems, transportation, energy, banking and finance, health and medical services, water supply, and key government services. The CIAO also assists federal departments and agencies identify their dependencies on critical infrastructure under the Project Matrix Program and coordinates national awareness, education and outreach efforts to private industry and state and local governments.
Mr. Richard Marshall, a confessed Grateful Dead fan and expert in international communications law, transferred to the CIAO from the "white-hat side" of the National Security Agency, the part entrusted with protecting information systems from attack. He led a free flowing discussion of the CIAO and what the office hopes to accomplish. The discussion changed directions based on questions and comments we had.
A couple of interesting events relating to communications’ security were presented. The first one, named "Eligible Receiver," was a wake-up call on information infrastructure security. It was a war game conducted by the Department of Defense. (Mr. Marshall served as the legal counsel.) The "red" team was able to successfully shut down the "blue" team's ability to fight by hacking into their command and control computer system. The hacking was conducted by using readily available information found on the Internet. After more study, it was found that numerous vulnerabilities could be used to compromise telecommunication networks (both public and private).
Even more worrisome was the event called "Solar Sunrise," a coordinated cracking attack on Department of Defense (DOD) computers in February 1998. Reportedly, some of the machines breached were working on troop deployment for Iraq. The attackers managed to gain root access -- the computer equivalent of God. The post-mortem, which traced the attack to teenagers in California and an Israeli hacker who guided them, confirmed the results of Eligible Receiver: important DOD computer systems lacked effective protections against a cyber attack. As a result, the CIAO was formed.
The CIAO was created in response to a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-63) in May 1998 to coordinate the Federal Government's initiatives on critical infrastructure assurance. The CIAO's primary areas of focus are to raise issues that cut across industry sectors and ensure a cohesive approach to achieving continuity in delivering critical infrastructure services. CIAO's major initiatives are to: (1) coordinate and implement the national strategy; (2) assess the U.S. Government's own risk exposure and dependencies on critical infrastructure; (3) raise awareness and educate public understanding and participation in critical infrastructure protection efforts; and (4) coordinate legislative and public affairs to integrate infrastructure assurance objectives into the public and private sectors.
The CIAO has 37 employees. Half are Schedule "A" contract employees. About a quarter are on loan from other government agencies. CIAO does most of its work by setting up partnerships with private industry and other government agencies, although Mr. Marshall prefers the term "relationships." The Nation's critical infrastructure is 95 percent owned by private companies (e.g., phone lines, utilities, railroads, etc.); therefore, developing relationships with private industry is essential.
A significant policy issue for CIAO was the problem of developing relationships with private industry, given that most companies do not trust the government. Companies were concerned that any information they provided, which would almost certainly involve trade secrets, would be released under an FOIA request. Also, companies believed they could not work together without violating anti-trust regulations. CIAO needed (and eventually received) FOIA exemption and the companies received an anti-trust exemption on issues related to CIAO work.
Mr. Marshall closed by saying that the goal of CIAO, is to prevent accidents from happening by finding vulnerabilities to the infrastructure and fixing problems before a breakdown can occur. The three-prong process includes, technological improvements, sound policy decisions, and education.
Henry C. Kelly
President
Federation of American Scientists
(January 15, 2003)Topic: Learning Technology Research and Development
New advances in information technology have afforded new opportunities for learning and education, but the changes have not diffused yet through society. Technology can make learning more productive, compelling, personal and accessible, and current implementations only use a fraction of the potential the hardware possesses. Dr. Henry Kelly, President of the Federation of American Scientists, sees many exciting possibilities on the horizon, given proper support from the research community in both the public and private sector.
How is learning facilitated by technology? Being provided clues on how to organize information into a logical structure is the key to acquiring expertise; this must include practical experience to fix the logic in the learner’s mind, since knowledge is not retained, as long-term memory if there is no practical application for it and the information doesn’t make sense. Dr. Kelly endorses what he terms a "revolution in learning," where ancient forms such as apprenticeships and internships integrate learning and assessment and make best use of teachers and experts. Advances in technology have the potential to do one better than one-on-one tutoring by structuring immediate feedback and assessment.
Focusing on tool building through simulated instruments and environments is what Dr. Kelly calls "enabling technology." There is a huge investment required for systems to dispatch questions to teachers, FAQ (frequently asked question) lists, tools that allow group formation, and methods to monitor learning sessions for advancement. Such approaches have been tried outside of the education sector and have been found to work. However, there is a continuing need to streamline and aggregate research approaches, which is challenging given the relatively low level of spending on learning technology -- a mere $50 million out of an estimated $900 billion in total education spending. Why is investment so low? Dr. Kelly thinks it is because it doesn’t fit into anyone’s jurisdiction, and foundations that might have taken an interest have had their assets severely diminished by the stock market collapse.
Looking down the road, Dr. Kelly sees a future redefinition of the generalist occupation of "teacher" to more specialized ones such as learning specialist, curriculum designer, subject matter specialist, simulation and virtual environments engineer, software engineer, and evaluation and certification expert. Such expert personnel will know how to foster learning in small group environments through teamwork -- something the marketplace has requested.
Progress has been slow in Dr. Kelly’s view because of lingering skepticism about the possibility of progress, along with the view that users are trapped in a cottage industry model with a weak infrastructure for innovation. Management has not been prepared for change, and there’s been lukewarm support from traditional education lobbyists, and an absence of a clearly articulated and exciting research program.
What Dr. Kelly calls a revolution in education might be approached at the state and local levels where education spending is largely rooted. However, teachers and other learning specialists often must overcome attitudes voiced by parents that they want their kids learning, "not playing games or cruising the Internet." The grades K-12 have been the most politically difficult terrain for innovation, suggesting that better platforms for progress might be adult or other vocational education, community colleges, or private sector or military-government training programs.
Indeed medical education may be a fertile ground for new learning technologies, according to Dr. Kelly. Medical schools, he said, are finding it increasingly difficult to find good teachers for first- and second-year classes such as anatomy. There’s no glory or bucks in it to attract the upcoming generation of medical teachers, and the older generation is dying off. "Homeopathic medicine starts looking better and better the more you look into medical education," Dr. Kelly observes.
Federal public-private partnerships brought us such innovations as global positioning systems, parallel computing, computer graphics, the Internet, agricultural research successes, and jet engines. Perhaps they will step up to usher in a technology-fueled revolution in learning.
Rebecca Hanmer
Director
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
(February 5, 2003)Topic: Intergovernmental Partnership and Science-Based Environmental Restoration
The Chesapeake Bay restoration effort is noted for its partnerships. Although Congress authorizes the program, EPA maintains regulatory authority of the Chesapeake Bay. More than 600 people (including federal, state and local governments, marine scientists, fishermen, farmers, environmental activists, and others) are involved in program committees. One of the keys to the partnership's success, according to Program Director, Ms. Rebecca Hanmer, is its transparency -- all the way from meetings to decision-making to operations. The process is collaborative and driven by stakeholder participation.
Collaboration has not led to restoration, however. Only one jurisdiction (the City of Washington, D.C.) has met the goal set in 1987 of reducing nitrogen and phosphorous by 40 percent, primarily through voluntary means. Yet in 2000, the partners agreed to even stricter goals, laying out 93 new commitments. Faced with this wish list, the Chesapeake Bay Program is focusing on the top priorities: working with communities to develop watershed management plans and correcting nutrient and sediment problems, both with a target date of 2010. Other goals in the queue include preserving 20 percent of the land from development, developing management plans for specific species of fish and wildlife, and increasing the native oyster population tenfold.
The stakeholders have acknowledged that the Chesapeake Bay's nutrient problems can't be solved through reduction of nitrogen streams alone, but require reductions in air deposition and sediment loads along tributaries as well. The Chesapeake Bay Program is pursuing multiple avenues to meet these objectives ?? involving additional states; studying the relationship between sediment, algae, and the food chain; regulating animal feeding operations; and developing standards on water clarity.
As with many environmental regulations, EPA's plans to publish federal guidance for the states on water quality standards have met with resistance from industry and municipalities. (The states are responsible for adopting and enforcing water quality standards.) EPA is considering various schemes (such as flexibility in state standards, the use of technology and best management practices, or even a trading program) to help states and stakeholders meet water quality goals. The Chesapeake Bay Program is the first United States program to pursue innovative methods to meet nutrient and sediment goals. Its collaborative nature (over 600 people from different federal and state agencies serve on the Program’s committees) calls for managerial finesse. "You must exercise power subtly, adroitly, and never in public," said Ms. Hanmer. Actual progress, she said, is more important than requirements that exist only on paper.
EPA's overall strategy is to pursue regulatory authority as far as possible, then rely on voluntary programs to meet environmental goals. The agency uses funding incentives (i.e., "purchasing behavior") to coax industry and other stakeholders to pursue voluntary opportunities in advance of regulation.
One of the Chesapeake Bay's most visible problems, the native oyster's decline, has generated many ideas, including a controversial plan to introduce a foreign oyster. This alien species, though projected to be more disease?resistant than the natives, could potentially decimate the native population even further. A pilot program was approved by the partnership for 2003.
Patricia O'Connell Ross
Team Leader for the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program
U.S. Department of Education
(February 12, 2003)Topic: Filling the Pipeline with Young Scientists
Ms. Patricia O'Connell Ross has a background in educational administration and policy, and is Team Leader for both the Mathematics and Science Partnership, and the Javits Gift and Talented Students Programs at the U.S. Department of Education. She presented provocative data showing a slide in math and science competency of United States students from fourth grade through high school, and discussed differences in curriculum and teacher preparation between the United States and other countries that likely account for our continuing poor performance in these subject areas. She concluded her presentation with a discussion of the "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001.
Although there was variability among United States school districts, United States fourth graders -- overall -- ranked near the top for achievement in math and science while twelfth graders ranked at the bottom. What happened during the intervening eight years? The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMS) of 1996 identified some significant differences between our education system and that of better performing countries. First, our curriculum is "a mile wide and an inch deep" and focused on procedural rather than developmental knowledge. Whereas "fourth grade" Japanese students are taught 20 topics in math and sciences, United States students are taught 32. By the eighth grade, the gap widens from 8 topics in Japanese schools to the 36 topics taught in this country; by twelfth grade, the gap extends from 3 (Japan) to 25 (United States). This unfocused curriculum, targeted to the lowest common denominator among students, and lack of common standards for how to teach it are seen to be key elements in the failure of United States students to be globally competitive in math and the sciences.
Teacher preparation is another significant problem. In other countries, a teacher is a respected professional who likely performed in the top quartile during their education. In this country, most teachers scored in the bottom quartile on their SATs. While primary education in math and sciences is highly variable, depending on each teacher's comfort zone, by middle school it gets worse, with less than 50 percent of math and science teachers holding a major or minor degree in those subject areas. In some districts, up to 25 percent of high school math and science teachers do not have major or minor degrees in these subjects; however, this varies widely, being more of a problem in inner city schools. Although teacher retention is also a problem, many states and local districts have initiated programs to bring more qualified individuals into the classroom. These include the "troops to teachers" program, which would transition retiring military personnel to teaching positions, education programs specifically designed for individuals looking for a mid-career change, and programs sponsoring active teachers to earn a graduate degree in a related discipline.
Despite these obvious differences between our educational system and that of other countries, achievement gaps continue to increase. To address this problem, the "No Child Left Behind" policy was proposed in 2001. This program is designed to make local school districts accountable for the academic performance of their students. Students will be required to pass competency tests at key points in the education process. By 2014, all students will be required to perform at the "proficient" level. If students fail to make "adequate yearly progress," a series of escalating sanctions will be invoked, culminating in closure of the under-performing school.
Sharon L. Hays
Deputy to the Associate Director for Technology
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
Executive Office of the President
(February 12, 2003)Topic: Science Policy Under the Bush Administration
Dr. Sharon Hays described why OSTP exists and what it does. She explained that Congress established OSTP in 1976 with the mission of providing the President with science and technology analyses on important issues. She used examples of how technology policy is made in order to make two points: (1) there is no one answer; and (2) nobody sits down and makes policy except sometimes.
The White House asks and the OSTP responds. Issues are chosen usually because they fit in one of the President's three top priorities -- the war on terrorism, homeland security, and strengthening the economy.
There are about 15 permanent people in the organization with many more detailees and fellows. The OSTP portfolio includes everything under the science and technology sun, and the detailees and fellows are particularly useful in bringing specific backgrounds to the issues being considered. Rapid turnaround on unexpected issues is common. For example, the Space Shuttle crash required immediate briefings for folks who had never worked on space issues, but were the spokespersons for the Administration and were presenting the Administration’s response.
OSTP is in the Executive Office of the President. There are two or three divisions depending on how you look at things. There is a Science Division and a Technology Division each led by an Associate Director who is confirmed by the Senate. The "third division" is the Office of the Chief of Staff. This office carries out administrative functions and has an increased policy role since 9/11 including homeland and national security. OSTP provided technical support to the Office of Homeland Security (the predecessor to the Department of Homeland Security).
How does OSTP advise the President? Sometimes physicist, Dr. John H. Marburger, III, OSTP Director, sits down with the President and gives advice directly to him; and sometimes staff members are tasked to brief the President. Memos are common devices for presenting advice, as well as meetings with other White House offices.
Another major mechanism of providing advice is through interagency efforts on science and technology. OSTP has a lot of connections with research and development efforts in the various departments. Most often, OSTP has people present at the discussions at intra/interagency working groups to stay on top of issues and provide input on efforts being led by groups outside the White House. In some cases, OSTP instigates and acts as the lead group directing an effort on an Administration core science and technology issue. Coordination and awareness of issues and efforts concerning science and technology is a key goal of OSTP.
There are two major advisory councils that work on science and technology policy. The National Science and Technology Council sets the plan. The President chairs the Council, the Vice President is the co-chair, and its membership includes cabinet level people from departments and agencies with significant science and technology missions. The work of the Council is mostly accomplished at lower levels, in subcommittees and working groups.
The other major council is the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST). It includes people from industry and academia, usually of a very high profile. PCAST provides an outside of the government perspective on science and technology issues.
The OSTP website is at www.ostp.gov.
Mortimer L. Downey III
Principal Consultant
PB Consult Incorporated
(March 5, 2003)Topic: Countering Terrorism in Transportation
Mr. Mortimer Downey is a principal consultant at PB Consult, a firm that provides advisory and management consulting services to public and private owners, developers, financers, and builders of infrastructure projects worldwide. Mr. Downey is a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Science and Technology to counter terrorism and, as a Committee representative; he explained to us how science and technology could be used as an efficient countermeasure to terror.
The NAS Committee published reports on the role of science and technology in "making the Nation safer" and in deterring, protecting, and preparing the United States for terror attacks. Following a post-9/11 NAS conference to inventory resources, assess the threat, and identify countermeasures, the Committee was formed. The Committee received the support and sponsorship of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. When one starts examining the systems of modern life for its vulnerability to terrorist attack, one quickly discovers how fragile a technological civilization can be. As a simple example, Mr. Downey observed, there are almost no spare parts for the transformer stations in the Nation’s power grid, because big transformers are basically custom-built for each application.
A sub panel on transportation, chaired by Mr. Downey, defined the strategy for one element of the countermeasure project. The study would focus on catastrophic terrorism, the combination of the likelihood and severity of a terrorist event. Mr. Downey reported that science and technology could play a role in the various levels of terrorism responses -- prediction, prevention, protection, interdiction, response and recovery, and attribution.
The sub panel concentrated on threat, infrastructure, and integration of information as general strategies and research needs were defined. Weapons of mass destruction are an apparent concern. Whereas a "dirty bomb" may not be life threatening, it would have enormous environmental/clean up consequences. Continued research on chemical/explosives sensors and filters is needed, as is research on biological weapons, including preparation and response distribution. Weaknesses or vulnerabilities in information technology, communications, and energy and power infrastructures require attention. Additional areas needing attention include infrastructure (stronger buildings), emergency responder support (better communications and deployment capabilities), transportation (layered security system), trusted spokespersons, complex systems (data fusion/data mining/red-teaming), and cross-cutting technology (sensors/robots/SCADAs/systems analysis). Finally, the sub panel identified the deployment of a Homeland Security Institute as a need, as well as partnering and information sharing between all appropriate agencies and institutions.
The sub panel clearly outlines the vulnerabilities of the transportation system as a target of terror. The system is open and accessible by design, which makes it equally easy for terrorists to penetrate. It is extensive and ubiquitous, exposed at every node. Diverse and institutionally divided, the transportation system carries federal, state, and private regulatory responsibilities that cut across all agencies. Through global linkages to society and the economy, the transportation system reaches every country, with people and goods moving constantly. This system is a prime target for terror attacks and also serves as a vehicle for transport of terrorists and weapons.
The sub panel has set forth optimum security systems for countering terror. It was suggested that the transportation industry establish technologically sophisticated, yet operationally feasible security systems. For example, they should ensure that screening equipment works in all (harsh) environments. A layered approach to security would provide multiple challenges to terrorists (i.e., ticket check, metal detector, and baggage search). Security should maintain "curtains of mystery" by not giving away the screening protocol, keeping terrorists guessing through random checks. Whereas "gates, guards, and guns" are important impediments and deterrents, additional security measures are critical. Finally, the sub panel suggests taking into account economic consequences of both the terrorist action and the countermeasure.
Mr. Downey summarized the sub panel’s findings by confirming that methods to counter terror need to be researched and initiated. There is a need for faster, better, cheaper, smaller, and "usable in the real world" technology. It is important to understand how systems work and design security accordingly. Because human factors have to be considered, it is necessary to recognize that even perfect systems are run by imperfect people. Lastly, a cadre of unconventional thinkers could help security to stay ahead of the terrorist, particularly by anticipating what might be in the terrorist’s mind by attempting to think like the terrorist.
David S. Trinkle
Program Examiner
Science and Space Programs Branch
Office of Management and Budget
(March 12, 2003)Topic: The Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding Process
Diana Espinosa
Deputy Assistant Director for Management
Office of Management and Budget
(March 12, 2003)Topic: The President's Management Agenda
Mr. David Trinkle opened the presentation with an overview and an organization chart of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the White House. He described the multiple roles of OMB as: (1) developing the budget; (2) assessing budget-related policy issues; and (3) overseeing the implementation, coordination and management of agency programs.
Mr. Trinkle’s remarks focused on the process that the White House uses to develop the federal budget. At any time of the year, budgets for three different fiscal years are in various stages of preparation. During the year, examiners from OMB will meet with their agencies to develop budgets, and each agency will submit its budget to the OMB by the late fall. OMB will provide feedback to each agency shortly afterward, and each agency has a limited time to appeal funding issues after the feedbacks. For FY 2004, the R&D budget is approximately $122.7 billion, about one-half of which is for defense.
On May 30, 2002, President Bush identified the following R&D priorities:
Homeland security and antiterrorism R&D
· Networking and information technology R&D
· National nanotechnology initiative
· Molecular level understanding of life processes
· Climate change science and technology
· Education researchPresident Bush also provided new criteria for R&D programs, which are: relevance (why), quality (how), and performance (how well).
In her presentation, Ms. Diana Espinosa highlighted the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and provided an overview of the President’s Management Agenda.
PART was developed to: (1) measure and diagnose program performance; (2) evaluate programs in a systematic, consistent, and transparent manner; (3) inform agency and OMB decisions for management, legislative or regulatory improvements, and budget decisions; and (4) focus program improvements and measure progress (e.g., compare with prior year ratings).
To date, PART has been tested on 67 programs during 2002 and rated 234 FY 2004 program budgets. PART revealed that more than one-half of these programs could not demonstrate results and needed significant improvement.
Ms. Espinosa also discussed the President’s Management Agenda, which was launched in August 2001. The President's Management Agenda is an aggressive strategy for improving the management of the Federal Government. It focuses on five areas of management weakness across the government where improvements and the most progress can be made. Ms. Espinosa described in detail five crossing-cutting initiatives: (1) strategic management of human capital; (2) competitive sourcing; (3) improved financial performance; (4) expanded electronic government; and (5) budget and performance integration.
Ms. Espinosa also discussed one of the nine program-specific initiatives highlighted by President Bush, which was better R&D criteria for federal programs. The results of the President’s Management Agenda may be found at the website: results.gov.
Charles T. Owens
Chief Executive Officer
U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union
(March 19, 2003)Topic: Science and Technology Cooperation with Scientists and Engineers in the Former Soviet Union
The U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF) is a non-profit charitable organization created by the U.S. Government (USG) in 1995. This unique public-private partnership promotes scientific and technical collaboration between the United States and the countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU).
The CRDF's goals are to:
· support exceptional peer-reviewed research projects that offer scientists and engineers alternatives to emigration and help prevent the dissolution of the scientific and technological infrastructure of the countries of the FSU;
· advance the transition of weapons scientists to civilian work by funding collaborative non-weapons research and development projects; and
· help move applied research to the marketplace and bring economic benefits both to the countries of the FSU and to the United States.The genesis for CRDF began in the early 1990s with philanthropist, George Soros, who was concerned about unemployed weapons scientists and engineers in the FSU being wooed by unfriendly nations in order to utilize their knowledge and skills. As a way to keep these scientists and engineers from emigrating from the FSU, and engaged in peaceful research endeavors, Mr. Soros provided $10 million to the USG to establish a program of scientific collaboration between the United States and FSU with the intent that at least 80 percent of the funding go the FSU side. More than 3,000 proposals were submitted in the initial grant competition and all $10 million was quickly awarded. Given this success, Mr. Soros was willing to provide an additional $5 million for another competition, but only if the USG was willing to match this amount. With former Congressman George Brown championing the cause, a number of federal agencies offered to contribute funding. Consequently, it was decided that a non-profit organization should be formed in order to establish a grants program and raise additional funding. Thus, the CRDF was borne and was given a ten-year life span.
The CRDF offers a number of programs: Cooperative Grants; Industry; Nonproliferation; Centers and Institution Building; and Grant Assistance. The typical grant from CRDF is for two years and the average award size is $60 thousand. It is a requirement that at least 80 percent of the funding be used in support of the FSU side of the collaboration. Since 1995, more than 600 awards (totaling $30 million) have been made. Approximately 95 percent of the researchers continue their collaboration after the grant has expired.
Mr. Charles Owens, Chief Executive Officer of CRDF, provided a number of anecdotal success stories from the program. One of which involved former weapons scientists switching their research focus from nuclear explosions to volcanic eruptions. The scientists' findings are expected to be useful in the detection and assessment of oil and gas prospects, and the prediction of natural disasters.
Mr. Owens was asked about the future prospects of the CRDF and whether or not it would survive beyond ten years. Mr. Owens responded that, in his view, there will be a need for CRDF beyond 2005, and that given current events (the war with Iraq) there may also be a need for CRDF to do its work outside the borders of the FSU.
Michael Rodemeyer
Executive Director
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
(April 2, 2003)Topic: Benefits and Concerns of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Agricultural Biotechnology Products
The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology was launched in March 2001 as a response to increasing global polarization over the relative risks and benefits of bioengineered foods, according to Executive Director, Mr. Michael Rodemeyer. The Pew Initiative is neither for nor against the technology and seeks to establish an objective, independent, and credible source of information about agricultural biotechnology.
Since introduction of the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, use of genetically modified (GM) crops has exploded in this country. Pest resistant and/or herbicide tolerant cotton, soybeans, and corn have been particularly successful because they make work easier for the farmer and have the additional environmental (and cost) benefit of reducing chemical pesticide use. However, current GM technology benefits the farmer, not the consumer. This, said Mr. Rodemeyer, stands in stark contrast to other products of biotechnology, including drugs and other pharmaceuticals, where consumer concerns and suspicion are far outweighed by the obvious and potential benefit(s) to the end user.
World market acceptance of GM foods is limited, with 99 percent of GM foods planted and consumed in the United States, Canada, Argentina, and China. Resistance to GM foods does not seem to be a simple matter of ignorance (consider the Frankenfood revolt in the European Union); rather it is a complex issue involving both safety and environmental concerns, muddied by projection of local social values onto the technology and variable faith in a country's regulatory system. Some concerns about safety are reasonable: while this technology is "under control" we can't guarantee it will be 100 percent safe forever. Environmental questions are more difficult, said Mr. Rodemeyer, since "gene flow happens." Pollen from GM crops is able to spread widely and we don't have the infrastructure to isolate GM foods from farm to fork. Finally, complex issues such as product liability have yet to be resolved.
The next five to ten years will be critical to determine the ultimate success of bioengineered foods. Clearly, good science is not enough. It will be incumbent upon agricultural biotech companies to communicate effectively the relative risks and merits of their products to the end user. Because United States-produced GM foods are sold in the global marketplace, the needs and concerns of the global community must be considered. Introduction of new plant forms that may be both food as well as drug (or pesticide) stretch our current regulatory definitions, thus necessitating new sophistication in our regulatory system that must also be transparent, credible, and effective.
More information about the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology can be found at their website (www.pewagbiotech.org).
28th Annual American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy
(April 10-11, 2003)Following a welcome by Mr. Floyd Bloom, Chairman and Professor of the Department of Neuropharmacology at the Scripps Research Institute and Chair of the AAAS Board of Directors, we heard from Dr. John Marburger, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, who gave the keynote address.
The next item on the agenda, a plenary session, addressed "Budgetary and Policy Context for Research and Development (R&D) in FY 2004."
Dr. Kei Koizumi, Director of the Research and Development Budget and Policy Program, AAAS, provided an overview of the Federal Government’s FY 2004 budget priorities and the implication of these priorities for R&D.
For FY 2004, R&D accounts for 5 percent of the total proposed United States' budget. Much of that ($1 billion estimated FY 2004) will be allocated to the Department of Homeland Security. Dr. Koizumi noted that there will be competition for slim resources and that the President’s budget is attempting to further restrain domestic discretionary spending, which includes R&D. In addition, the government is now facing a record budget deficit with no surplus in sight. Most importantly, the budget does not include the cost of the war with Iraq and is therefore likely to change.
Mr. Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, was next to speak. He offered his perspective on the effect of the current war in Iraq and global policies. He noted that after the war four reconstructions will be needed.Reconstruction of Iraq will be the first step, both early infrastructure needs and later institutional systems, such as the judicial system and trade. Next, the United States must reconstruct its relationship with the United Nations and its agencies/organizations. Third, said Mr. Naim, the War has damaged our relationship with much of Europe. He noted that stability in both regions has been dependent on a collaborative relationship between both continents. The United States, he argued, should engage Europe in discussions of who gets contracts to build infrastructure and access to oil and other resources. He noted that our approach of "high-risk gambles" is very different to the European approach. We need to be aware of these differences in our discussions and plans. Lastly, he said, Europe needs to be "reunited." The United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain have supported the War and are at odds with countries like France, Germany, and Portugal. Even in the countries that have supported the United States, the divide is profound between governments and their electorate. Mr. Naim cautioned that the cost to the United States in terms of loss of goodwill will be very significant and not easily regained if these four issues are not addressed.
Dr. Karen Holbrook, President of Ohio State University, introduced several topics described in more detail in the remaining Colloquium. She described the Ohio State experience of working in an environment in which scientific knowledge is at an incredible and unprecedented state with remarkable opportunities for new advances because of new technology, but is hampered by uncertainty in funding and vacillating social and ethical policies. She noted that, from her experience, there were three essential ingredients for good university R&D.First, universities need stability in funding sources and in policies. She noted that federal R&D has fallen to its lowest point (measured as GDP) in 50 years. She described her experience in dealing with new and changing regulatory policies such as those governing select agents, stem cells, and clinical trials.
The second challenge is balancing conflicting needs and priorities. For example, she discussed the difficulty that Ohio State is having in switching from basic science to more product-focused research. Lastly, a clearly articulated vision is required to keep progressing. She suggested that a universal definition for basic research be developed. She noted that the importance of a shared vision in space research and reminded us how this inspired new scientists. Likewise, we are at a point now where a shared vision can galvanize the disciplines of science, information technology, ethics, and technology. She concluded that shared vision must include energy and enthusiasm to engage new scientists in this field.
Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), closed the plenary session with his thoughts on issues in the horizon for the NIH. He reminded us that NIH funds nearly half of all science and research in the United States and the bulk of research worldwide. Of this money, 83 percent of the NIH budget goes out to scientists at universities and organizations around the country. Dr. Zerhouni said that, particularly after a period of growth, it's important to harmonize interactions between various functions. To achieve a so-called "soft landing" after the doubling of the NIH budget during the past five years, Dr. Zerhouni said he would advocate as strongly as he could to defend the value of continued investment in biomedical research. He noted that the opportunities in science have never been greater. Dr. Zerhouni is concerned that public recognition of the agency is not as high as one would think. And yet, all of the major advances in healthcare, and in discovery, over the past 30 years have come from NIH. He wants to promote NIH as being in the vanguard in healthcare and research progress.
Dr. Zerhouni described the evolving challenges that NIH is facing. These include: a shift from acute to chronic diseases; new issues with an aging population and more disparate ethnic groups; emerging and re-emerging diseases; and biodefense. He closed with an overview of the NIH Strategic Roadmap that will guide NIH over the next three to five years.
Concurrent sessions were held in the afternoon of the Colloquium. One such session was entitled, "Universities and Their Aspirations: How Much Excellence Can We Afford?"
The first of the panel members to address us was Dr. Irwin Feller, AAAS Senior Visiting Scientist, and Professor Emeritus of Economics from Pennsylvania State University. He provided "An Overview of Current National Trends." Dr. Feller stated two rules: (1) There is no cap on the number of universities that may be ranked very high in quality, and (2) only 50 percent can be in the top 50 percent.
Aspirations to improve, advance, and excel are reflected in the open, competitive nature of the United States' university system. These aspirations -- striving for Research I status, membership in the American Association of Universities, and an overall top ranking -- have propelled the number of "research intensive" universities from only six during World War II to twenty by 1960 and then to over a hundred by 2000, with most of the growth occurring in the public university sector. While aspirations are important -- "the wannabees are the gonnabees" -- there has been a lot of churn in the top 50 percent over the past sixty years. R&D funds, more dispersed now than they were in the mid-20th Century, still go mainly to the universities ranked in the top 100.
To break into the top ranks, a university must be able to answer several key questions. How can it establish the right blend of teaching, research, and outreach activities? How will it achieve the right balance among different fields of study? What strategies can it use to increase research grants to the faculty? How will it support the institutional cost of the research infrastructure? Finally, what are the overall effects of these aspirations on the overall competitiveness of the university?
Unfortunately, expectations of excellence are rising at a time when funding is falling. While state support is limiting, universities have to make major up-front investments to compete for research funding in order to improve their research ranking. This leads to the final question: how important is the relative ranking of one research university to another? Dr. Feller concluded that, while the numerical value of the rank itself is not a key issue, how that ranking affects allocation of R&D resources is.
Next on the panel to speak was Dr. Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice President for Research and Chief Operating Officer at Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and AAAS Board of Directors' Member, who address the growing research competitiveness of United States' universities. "Strategies for Moving Up: One University, One Story" draws from Dr. Villa-Komaroff's seven years as Vice President of Research at Northwestern University.
In order to strengthen Northwestern's research competitiveness, they chose to build on existing academic and research strengths, identified opportunities in those areas, and then strengthened the elements critical for excellence. This required a commitment from university leadership, commitment of resources applied to appropriate targets, and a motivated faculty who were able to articulate their visions for the future. How did they make it happen? They encouraged a climate of responsibility, rewarded the audacious, celebrated success, matched expectations to resources, and discouraged complacency.
During Dr. Villa-Komaroff's tenure as research Vice President, Northwestern University enjoyed a significant increase in research funding, although the overall rank of the university remained approximately the same.
Another panelist, Dr. David Ward, President of the American Council on Education spoke to "The Moving Target: Actions by 'Established' Universities."
The best universities are in the top 100 out of 2,400 institutions (or more). Variation in quality among the top twenty is subtle and the exact ranking is not necessarily significant. However, outside the top 100, there are many good institutions that can't compete for comprehensive excellence. Instead, they are best served by a policy of "targeted excellence," where they find their niche then express excellence in an appropriate way.
How do they do this? First, resources are important. Revenues from tuition, endowment growth, and state funds are all combined to support their development plan. However, state supported schools are increasingly becoming "state located" schools due to dwindling financial resources at the state government level. This poses a continuing financial challenge. Second, they need to create a critical mass of talent in key areas. Third, the quality of the undergraduate class is important. Finally, geography matters when attracting the best faculty and students -- there is a huge coastal advantage.
How many public universities can we afford? Dr. Ward calculates that one research intensive public university with a medical school requires a tax base of six million people in order to generate adequate revenue to support 20 percent of its operating costs (the average level of state commitment to a research university). Thus, by his estimation we can afford 70-75 public research universities in addition to the private schools.
Panelist Dr. Debra W. Stewart, President, Council of Graduate Schools, spoke to "The Effects on Graduate Education."
The 450 member institutions in the Council of Graduate Schools grant 90 percent of the doctoral and 85 percent of the master's degrees in this country. The growth in doctoral programs has been substantial: between 1980-2000, the number of universities granting doctoral degrees rose from 325 to 426. How much excellence can we stand? We can afford less than we've been trying to achieve, and the potential for excellence has diminished with diminishing resources.
Does striving trump excellence in graduate education? Aspirations trump excellence if all universities share one aspiration. However, we're seeing an increase in the diversity of graduate programs. New programs such as professional master's degrees (the baccalaureate degree-equivalent of the current generation) are growing in number. They allow universities to enter the prestige economy without trying to put together a mediocre Ph.D. program. This is one of the most promising elements of academic diversity. Aspiration trumps excellence if it skews funding on non-merit-based criteria. This is difficult to assess. It hasn't caused a pork barrel (but the reverse might be true). Aspirations trump excellence if there are no students to fill newly created graduate programs or if there's no market for the offered degrees. This does not seem to be true. The demand for graduate degrees continues to increase although doctorates granted to United States' students are down. It will be a challenge to develop the domestic science pool and limit the high attrition rate (20 to 50 percent of all Ph.D. students are lost to the programs before they complete their degrees).
Overall, aspirational behavior is probably good rather than bad. It advances institutionally articulated visions of excellence and drives development of science and mathematics talent pool.
The final panelist, Mr. Dan Pearson, Minority Professional Staff Member on the House Committee on Science, spoke to "The Realities of Distributing Federal R&D Funds."
The overall federal budget situation is dire, a sea of red ink. We are not going to see the National Science Foundation budget double in the near future, the National Institute of Health growth will be reduced, and growth at Research I universities will be limited to four to seven percent per year. How do we get around this problem? Universities increasingly rely on academic earmarks, a directed appropriation of funds, to supplement their operating expenses. Earmarks were unheard of before the late 1980s, but by FY 2002 totaled $1.9 billion.
An earmark can temporarily level the playing field between well-endowed universities and smaller schools with aspirations of improving their quality. The trick is to turn an earmark into an ongoing revenue stream. Loma Linda University in California tops the list for the number of earmarks in recent years, but it's still not in the top 100 universities and has not established an ongoing revenue stream. On the other hand, Oregon Health Sciences University used earmarks to break into the top 100. They used the support to build infrastructure and to recruit faculty with potential to bring in their own research funding. OHSU has not used earmarks since 1996.
How does a university get an earmark? They either have a friend or alumnus on the Committee, a subcommittee member from their state (and district), or they use lobbyists (at $150,000/earmark) and other connections.
Another concurrent session on the first afternoon of the Colloquium, addressed "Developments in Homeland Security and Science and Technology (S&T)."
Mr. William Bonvillian, Legislative Director to Senator Joseph Lieberman, described the history of the Homeland Security Agency. He noted that this was the first new science and technology agency in 45 years. The new department will oversee integrated research, development, testing, evaluation, and deployment of biodefense products. The structure will allow for the coordination of scientific research in security topics, which he believes will enhance cross-discipline collaboration. The remaining challenges will be to encourage industry’s participation in this effort and to develop an agreed upon, common research roadmap for biodefense, particularly since most of the R&D will be done by other agencies.
Following Mr. Bonvillian, Dr. Lawrence D. Kerr, Assistant Director for Homeland Security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy described the mission of the new Department and its plans for science and technology. Part of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) mission will be to stimulate, conduct and enable research for securing our Nation; develop partnerships with industry; and develop a research capacity dedicated to homeland security. The bill creating the agency was signed into law on July 22, 2002, and it has an operating budget of $37 billion.
Dr. Kerr noted that there are several challenges to implementing this new agency. For example, it will be responsible for not only science and new product development, but also the monitoring of over 2,800 power plants, 190,000 pipelines, and 18,000 flights per day. Part of this agency will include the new Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), which will have a capability to solicit, develop, and demonstrate technologies that will meet the operational needs.
The third panelist in this session was Dr. John Y. Killen, Assistant Director for Biodefense Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH). He described the NIH biodefense research agenda. He noted that since the fall of 2001, the NIAID has moved quickly to accelerate basic and clinical research related to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases caused by potential agents of bioterrorism.
Dr. Killen also noted that for FY 2003, President Bush has proposed a $1.75 billion budget in biodefense research funding for NIH, which will enable the NIAID and other NIH institutes to expand ongoing projects and establish new initiatives as part of a comprehensive and sustained biodefense research program. The NIAID biodefense research agenda focuses on studies of microbial biology and host responses to microbes; the development of new vaccines, therapies, and diagnostic tools; and the development of research resources such as appropriate labor