 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
 |
|
||
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 h