Nanotechnology: Opportunities and Challenges
September 10, 2001
University of California at Los Angeles
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
|
2
|
|
Opening Remarks Summaries
|
4
|
Martha Krebs, CNSI Director, UCLA
Barbara J. Nelson, Dean, UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research
Bruce Mehlman, Assistant Secretary of Tech. Policy, US Department of Commerce
Joe Raguso, Deputy Secretary, California Technology Trade and Commerce
Agency
James Heath, Scientific Director, California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI)
Highlights from the Plenary Session
|
8
|
|
Highlights from the Breakout Session
|
15
|
I. Bioscience
II. Information Technology
III. Aerospace
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
"An Extraordinary Time in the Sciences" by Albert Carnesale
"Shaping Policy for Nanoscience Development" by Bruce Mehlman
Workshop Charter
|
23
|
|
Speaker biographiese Breakout Session
|
25
|
|
UCLA SPPSR press release
|
39
|
|
Workshop Agenda
|
40
|
|
Attendees List
|
43
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We are pleased to provide the proceedings of a conference entitled, "Nanotechnology:
Opportunities and Challenges" held on September 10, 2001. This was
the first in a series of conferences on nanoscience and technology that
are being sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce and other Federal
agencies. Additional conferences will be held in 2002 at a number of locations
around the country.
Nanoscale science and engineering has been the growing focus of exciting
research and discovery over the last decade and a half. A major Federal
multi-agency nanotechnology research initiative is underway to enhance
and facilitate the collaboration across disciplines that is required to
advance both scientific knowledge and the practical applications of nanotechnology.
This conference was organized to explore the status of research at the
nanometer scale and its utilization by industry.
There was a special interest in how to bring the 'nano' into the marketplace
promptly by identifying obstacles and the ways to remove them. The conference
addressed three specific industry sectors - information technology, bioscience,
and aerospace - and drew many of its participants from Southern California
and the western United States.
Major points that emerged from the plenary session include the following:
- There is a significant wave of intellectual energy, innovation and
capital in nanoscience worldwide, and the Federal Government is well
poised to support research and private-sector development.
- There is particular scientific excitement for nanoscience development
"from the bottom up," building from molecule to molecular
structures, as it occurs in biological processes.
- Government, university, and industry collaboration is needed most
in "revolutionary" nanotechnologies that need more time to
produce marketable products, most notably in microfluidics.
- University researchers are deeply involved in most successful high-technology
firms, and researchers involved in commercialization are the most productive
in publishing and disseminating research.
In his presentation, Dr. James Heath, scientific director of the California
NanoSystems Institute, said one of the challenges in nanotechnology is
to develop a "bottom-up" manufacturing approach that can take
advantage of the beauty and complexity of molecular materials. It was
clear throughout the conference, that Southern California companies are
paying attention to nanotechnology. A number of start-ups such as Nanogen
and Fluidigm, as well as mid-size companies like DI-Veeco, have products
on the market with applications ranging from biomedicine to technical
instrumentation. Existing companies of all sizes are examining the implications
of nanoscale materials for their businesses, from chemical process improvements
for conventional sensors and detectors to new materials for aerospace
applications. Venture capitalists, who have identified the promise of
nanotechnology, also pointed out the current constraints of the venture
funding environment. Some of our scientific speakers at the conference
cautioned against unrealistic early expectations and noted the blurring
of lines between nanoscale phenomena and their use in "micro"
systems.
Our concurrent sessions on specific industry sectors made clear how the
different scientific and engineering disciplines come together in tackling
the problems and challenges of nanotechnology. For biological sciences,
nanotechnology brings many new opportunities, in particular for the development
of new diagnostics and pharmaceuticals technologies. The opportunities
for integrating the new tools and instruments for physical science with
biotechnology are especially exciting. The information technology session
group reiterated the need for more basic science in making the kinds of
gains that are achievable with nanotechnology. The aerospace session highlighted
the need for an infrastructure and system of standards to characterize
things on a nanometer scale. The participants in all of the sessions made
the case for new educational approaches that would bring more, and differently
trained, scientists and engineers into the workforce. Conference participants
expressed confidence that nanotechnology will be the basis for innovations
that will drive our future economy.
As we planned and carried out this conference, of course we never imagined
the events of the next day. As the nation mobilized to address the aftermath
of September 11, the members of the research community looked at their
opportunities, and it quickly became clear that nanotechnology could contribute
to the fight against terrorism. Future conferences will examine these
opportunities more closely. Nanotechnology has also continued to progress.
In its traditional year-end issue that identifies the research breakthrough
of the year, Science magazine selected research on nanocircuits as the
breakthrough for 2001, saying, "In 2001, scientists assembled molecules
into basic circuits, raising hopes for a new world of nanoelectronics."
As we all move forward, we in the broad community interested in nanotechnology
are happy to provide you with these proceedings.
SUMMARIES OF OPENING REMARKS
Dr. Martha Krebs
Director, California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI)
The California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) is a collaboration and a
partnership between the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and
the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). CNSI was created in
December of 2000 by the State of California along with three other UC-based
institutions for science and innovation. It is the only one of the new
institutes to focus specifically on nanoscience and technology. However,
all of the institutes are expected to build the knowledge base, the human
resources and the industry and academic partnerships necessary to keep
California at the cutting edge of high-technology commerce in the next
50 years, as we have been for the last 50.
We at UCLA and UCSB view today's workshop as an important part of delivering
on CNSI's mission.
The leadership that organized this workshop and brought you here today
is shared by the California NanoSystems Institute, the UCLA School of
Public Policy and Social Research, and the Los Angeles Regional Technology
Alliance (LARTA). This reflects the importance of nanoscience and technology
for research, regional economic development and national technology policy
issues. The workshop was made possible by our sponsors from the Federal
Government: the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation
(NSI), and the U.S. Department of Transportation, along with other Federal
agencies that are making substantially increased investments in the multidisciplinary
research enterprise that is the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Our purpose today is to hear from you what it will take to bring nanotechnology
innovation into the marketplace in general and in your specific industries.
We will be hearing about all of these issues throughout the day. We will
be hearing from national and state government officials, academic researchers
and industry leaders about the possibilities and problems that nanotechnology
can address.
For more information, visit the CNSI website at: http://www.cnsi.ucla.edu
Barbara J. Nelson
Dean, UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research
Breakthroughs in science and technology and their applications depend
on the policy environment as much as they do on the science and environment.
Our decisions have been about how the policy process is going to affect
this scientific and technical and industrial effort. The questions are
really just emerging, but I am sure they affect your lives now. The policy
school, especially the Department of Policy Studies, brings to this enterprise
the rigorous skills of cost benefit analysis, ethical inquiry, regulatory
and investment policies, and democratic accountability.
There are five big policy question areas:
1) Federal funding toward basic research is the first big policy question.
2) What will the opportunities of biomedical nanoscience and technology
do to healthcare costs and healthcare access and how will it affect popular
support for these activities?
3) Ethics - The stem cell conversation is a bellwether. It is an indication
of the kinds of questions about public purpose and public money and public
investment that will parallel activities in the nanoscience and nanotechnology
area.
4) The kinds of things we are looking at now at the intersection of basic
science and applied science are going to make our policy decisions in
the future very important. These include intellectual property, globalization,
trade, and work conditions, as well as basic findings vs. patentability.
5) National security implications.
We will be called to develop ways of measuring our success that are accountable
to people. It is in this area that the Public Policy School will contribute.
Bruce Mehlman
Assistant Secretary of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce
To lead in an increasingly competitive global environment, and to see
Nanotechnology realize
its potential, we will need several things.
First, we will need a long-term commitment to fund many years of research.
Through the National Nanotechnology Initiative - a collaborative effort
among Federal agencies - the Federal Government aims to ensure consistent
and coordinated investments in the research needed to unlock nanotechnology's
potential. But we will need sustained private investment in R&D as
well.
Second, we will need to establish centers of excellence in nanotechnology
that attract and support the top technologists in the world. California
clearly has a commitment to leading in this field, and other states are
also moving aggressively forward. With the California Nanosystems Institute
right here at UCLA, the Los Angeles area could emerge as the leading nanotechnology
cluster - who would have thought that anything on such a small scale could
succeed so close to Hollywood?
Third, we will need to create close linkages among university, government
and industry researchers, business leaders and entrepreneurs, the capital
community, education and training institutions, and policy makers at the
Federal, state and local levels.
And finally, we will need to make sure our policy makers "get it,"
and get the policies right to support innovation and development. That
is why we recommended to our sister agencies in the NNI that we reach
out to the business and investment communities with this and future conferences.
Joe Raguso
Deputy Secretary, California Technology Trade and Commerce Agency
California is the world's fifth largest economy. It's clear that our
success is completely tied to innovation. It is clear to anyone who loves
science that we only do as well as the network that we create. It is the
confluence of those energies and passions that really differentiates us.
The premier areas of science and technology are going to be the most
important, not only on the research and development side by also to our
economic development (i.e., jobs, good quality jobs for Californians).
The challenges are great for an enterprise like this. It requires interdisciplinary
research. To the businessperson, venture capitalist, entrepreneur - everybody
knows that's where the action happens, taking these great ideas and disciplines
and bringing them together.
When you try to pull together an institute like that, it places in front
of you the difficulty of trying to come up with the systems to keep this
whole thing working, across all the Federal agencies from the National
Science Foundation (NSF) to the Department of Commerce, the funds from
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), from the Department
of Energy (DOE), from the state and, of course, from all the private sector
interests that are here for various purposes. Dr. Krebs has no small task
in front of her in keeping all this going.
The institute, and all the institutes in California, give us a set of
challenges, not only the technical challenges. Along those lines, when
you think about technology, especially rapid technology innovation, the
impacts on society are usually not consensual. Technology creates winners
and losers. Nanotechnology is in its nascent stages, and has the potential
to be all these different things.
Fifty years ago there was no Silicon Valley. Now we have about 40 regions
trying to be Silicon Valley. Thirty years there was no biotech industry,
and 10 years ago there wasn't an Internet in the sense that we all know
it now. Who knows what enterprises will be created and what medical breakthroughs
will result as a result of the Nanotech Institute? We do know this: the
breakthroughs will occur. I want to make sure that they occur here in
California to the benefit of the California citizens.
Dr. James Heath
Scientific Director, California NanoSystems Institute
One of the challenges in nanotechnology is to develop a "bottom-up"
manufacturing approach that can take advantage of the beauty and complexity
of molecular materials. If you look at the technologies that have been
developed over the last century, the real triumph of 20th-century science
was learning how to manipulate and control either the very small (meaning
the atom, or a few atoms) or the very large, a bulk solid.
For example, a graphite lattice can have massive numbers of carbon atoms,
but by taking only a couple of these carbon atoms you can generate the
entire lattice. The point is this bulk material, just like the small molecule,
is a low information content system. On the other hand, a relatively small
number of atoms pieced together in the form of a protein is very difficult
to understand. When complexity originates at the level of the protein,
at the level of about one to two nanometers, then you get much more complex
form and function out of it, but is much more complex to understand.
It is our belief at CNSI, and I think the belief of others involved in
the National Nanotechnology Initiative, that learning how to harness and
control complexity at this length scale is going to be one of the emerging
technologies of the 21st century. It is the scale in between what we learned
to do in the last century. I want to phrase this discussion in terms of
energy because the one consumable that tracks our standard of living is
energy consumption. For business people, energy equals wealth, and for
technologists, energy provides a thermodynamic framework for trying to
understand if the physics in what you are trying to accomplish in a particular
task is "young" or if it is mature. What I will try to convince
you of is that the physics across the board in what we do today is young.
I believe that the metric of success in nanotechnology is if we can increase
the worldwide standard of living but with reduced energy consumption.
Nanotechnology can be a room temperature, very "green" technology.
Nanotechnology offers improvements in the following areas of energy consumption:
transportation, information technology, lighting, manufacturing, and medicine:
- Lighting: Efficiency will increase with nanotechnology.
- Transportation: Cars will be more efficient and will be lighter with
new materials. Some technologies are already in use in materials.
- Information technology: Information may be treated as a physical quantity.
You can calculate what it costs to do a calculation. In thermodynamic
terms, a computer represents the application of a "young"
physics. Efficiency is enhanced with quantum computation.
- Medicine: There is a revolution ahead in human proteomics.
Finally, once you actually do know the form and function of the proteins
and how they are related to the genomes, you need to have a molecular
imaging diagnosis that can take you to the isolated protein and all the
way up to the cell, the organ, the organism, and the patient. In fact,
one big aspect of the CNSI is to develop and encompass the imaging techniques
for doing just that.
All of us in the room are reliant on the future work force, whether it
is graduate students or technology workers in industry. Even with economy
the way it is now, there are some 800,000 unfilled technology jobs in
the nation. At the moment, students that are coming up have a very non-traditional
set of skills. We have to figure out how to harness this. Kids are excited
by problems, not disciplines. How do we teach to this, grab the enthusiasm
that these people have for scientific problems, and take advantage of
that instead of focusing on the traditional disciplines of a university?
For more information and illustrations, visit Dr. Heath's website at:
http://www.cnsi.ucla.edu/people/Faculty/UCLA/heath_j.html
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PLENARY SESSION
Brian Pierce
Engineering Fellow and Manager of Advanced RF Technologies Department,
Microwave Center, Raytheon Electronic System, El Segundo, CA.
Raytheon is looking for commercial opportunities. We are going to the
investment community and looking for the market pull where we have the
appropriate positioning of our technologies. Nanotechnology can be one
of those and we are active in that area as well.
Raytheon is interested in nanotechnology, in particular, nanoelectronics
(e.g., resonant tunneling diodes). We are focused on semiconductor nanoelectronic
devices, and are working on quantum boxes, or dots, which refers to confinement
of electrons to a semiconductor structure in three dimensions. This very
tight confinement to a semiconductor structure gives rise to quantum mechanical
effects. Therefore, nanotechnology is important in high-speed data processing
and is seen as a way to improve radar and advanced sensor systems.
Nanofabrication is real and it is going on at Raytheon and other companies
that use semiconductor devices. Molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) is an established
technique being used at a number of laboratories and production facilities.
MBE is a fabrication technology that allows one to deposit sub-nanometer
layers of materials onto a single crystalline substrate. There are some
new interests and advances in this area. Motorola just reported putting
down gallium arsenide onto silicon. Our operation in Andover, Massachusetts
actually puts an indium phosphide type of semiconductor onto gallium arsenide
epitaxially, so this is a working nanotechnology.
There is a lot of excitement for "bottom-up" types of nanofabrication,
which is chemical and biological nanofabrication. Building from molecules
to supermolecular assemblies is an area we are not active in at Raytheon,
but we need to be cognizant of the developments and explore possibilities
for partnerships.
Semiconductor nanotechnology is more mature today than the chemical/biological
nanotechnology for this bottom-up type of fabrication approach. One important
distinction is the design, fabrication and testing infrastructure for
nanofabrication or nanotechnology from a semiconductor point of view.
It is much better established and has a more extensive foundation than
the chemical and biological applications, so there is a need there to
bring those up to comparable levels. Looking at hybrid semiconductor and
molecular or semiconductor biomolecular type of structures, materials
devices could act as bridges between the more mature semiconductor nanotechnology
and chemical and biochemical nanotechnologies. Biosensors could be considered
such an example.
Raytheon is interested in higher power devices, which are problematic
when you talk about nanotechnology or nanostructures, what kind of voltages
you can apply, etc. Here, however, we are emphasizing very low-power,
high-speed computation. There is in existence proof that you can achieve
this; the question is how can we emulate this.
There is progress being made on addressing key technical challenges to
develop nanotechnology. A few are as follows:
- Fabrication of device arrays. Semiconductor approaches with lithographic
techniques can do this very well; we are seeing improvements being made
in the bottom-up or more nontraditional approaches.
- The connection or communication between individual nanoscale devices
is something of great interest. We heard in Dr. Heath's talk about the
advances made in nanowires. I would challenge the community to address
how we can mimic biological processes such as photosynthesis in terms
of coupling and energy transfer to better establish this.
- Heat dissipation and very efficient power generation. Again, biological
processes are very good at that. From our point of view, the issues
are reliability and these questions of thermal-induced errors or radiation.
We have several types of platforms we put into space where radiation
hardening is a real concern. When you start to make these structures
very small, you have to build more redundancy into the system. A lot
of interesting system trade-offs have to be considered.
As repeatedly stressed by the other speakers, this is a multidisciplinary
effort. I think we certainly recognize that. That's the value of this
institute and activities such as today's workshop. Finally, biology, from
our point of view, would provide some very good design guidelines and
architectures for these man-made nanotechnologies. So, there is our perspective
at Raytheon. Thank you very much.
Steve Quake
Founder, Fluidigm Technology, Associate Professor, California Institute
of Technology
I am somewhat of a nano-skeptic. The term nanoscience is so elastic that
it can be stretched and distorted to describe such a broad range of topics
as to almost become meaningless. I would like to talk about what I feel
is the interesting part of nanoscience: the ability to fabricate arbitrary
devices and machines at nanometer length scales, whether they be out of
traditional hard materials, or electronic devices, quantum devices or
devices made from biological materials. This element of design, and the
ability to do arbitrary design, is a very important part for me. Within
this aspect of nanoscience, one wants to distinguish evolutionary developments
from revolutionary ones. One has the ability to fabricate devices with
hundred-nanometer features right now. That is the result of this wonderful
evolution in the electronics industry, and there are going to be a number
of very nice ways to capitalize on this evolutionary technology.
The plus side of evolutionary technology is that it is well established,
so it is going to be easy to commercialize new applications based around
that, and one nice area for that is photonic crystals. However, for me
as an academic, the most interesting part is to think about the revolutionary
applications, which are the ones that are really going to change the way
we look at things. Those of course are the farthest from commercialization.
Maybe only the most speculative investors are going to think about commercializing
that right now. On the other hand, it certainly is an excellent area to
invest in from the government point of view and for people who have the
long view and are very patient. There are a number of very interesting
opportunities there; it's a fun area to think about. One should be very
careful about making predictions about how soon those will come to market,
because as history has shown us, obstacles pop up along the way.
In discussing revolutionary technologies, we can start with microfluidics.
People began seeing the vision of microfluidics 10 years ago, and there
were some companies that entered into this area early on, led by visionary
people. Some have been successful in the sense that they are still around.
It is clear that there is still much work to do before they become the
giants that Intel and Motorola have become in the electronic industry,
but we are seeing a second wave coming around and there is a greater appreciation
of what the important problems are to solve. We will see successful results
from both first and second wave companies but it's not the kind of thing
early investors saw profits on in a three-year timeframe. For those who
are patient, many wonderful things are happening now. There is a sense
in the field that microfluidics is beginning to realize its potential.
Michael Darby
Warren C. Cordner Professor of Money and Finance Markets, Anderson School,
UCLA
Lynne Zucker and I have spent part of the last decade trying to understand
the reproducible regularities in science and technology that transfer
from science to technology. In this research, three points relevant to
this conference have emerged. The first has to do with university-industry
partnerships, the second with the prominence of California, and the third
with policy and property issues.
First, it is not a coincidence that university professors are deeply
involved in most successful high-tech firms. These industries form around
the relevant research universities, the top centers of excellence. These
scientist entrepreneurs wear two hats. We find that if you have top scientists
working within a university-firm collaboration, so there is embodied technology
transfer, these firms have a 1-in-3 chance of succeeding and being one
of the top-10 firms in the industry 10 or 15 years later. Without that
kind of involvement of the very best and the very brightest, it's more
like one in a thousand.
This brings us to the prominence of California. For the fields most relevant
to semiconductors and superconductors, particularly physics, applied physics,
materials sciences and engineering, and the constellation of such related
fields, we see that California is very strong. Illinois started out the
strongest but seems to have suffered some losses in 1998 and 1999. We
speculate that people moved away from Illinois, but this is very preliminary
research; we haven't gotten that far. In biological, chemical and medical
sciences and engineering fields, again, California is high on the list,
the highest by far. This is not surprising. Interestingly, Texas has moved
up into the top ranks in this area.
What are the welfare and policy issues? First, people are concerned about
university scientists involved in commercialization. We have found that
university scientists involved in commercialization have more resources,
and as result they do a lot more science. In terms of publishing, the
university scientists involved in commercialization do substantially more
publishing than those who are not at universities. In fact, they do more
while they are involved in commercialization than they do before or after.
Second, there is concern about the deflection of the development of science
toward commercially relevant problems. There's some hint that really does
go on, but it is not clear that research in other areas of science are
lagging as a result.
Third, conflict of interest is among the biggest policy issues, as is
its counterpart, conflict of commitment to the university. University
patent offices frequently say they are judged by how much revenue they
get. So they say "we want it all." Bayh-Dole set minimum royalty
at 20 percent for inventing scientists. Right now the national average
through market competition is around 40 percent. California's rate is
around 50 percent, but it is negotiable as part of the wage contract.
From the point of view of the university, the ideal share is zero. The
ideal share for the investigator is 100 percent if the investigator is
rich enough to be able to afford the risk. The Bayh-Dole process of getting
the inventors involved in commercializing their products, along with the
Advanced Technology Program (at NIST in the Commerce Department), has
been very effective in the United States. In Japan, by contrast, in the
past they didn't want the professors to make a dime out of the research,
because they are public servants. Needless to say, technology transfer
lagged there (except, of course, in the event of large cash payments,
which many scientists in Japan received), because of the great cost to
that economy of not having any university to firm technology transfer.
What Lynne Zucker and I are trying to do is work with our colleagues
at CNSI to investigate in an emerging industry, an emerging area of science
and technology, the interplay between science, policies, property rights
and commercialization. The object is to try to figure out what institutions
are most effective and which institutions get in the way.
Joel Balbien
Managing Member of Smart Technology Ventures
Smart Technology Ventures is a venture capital firm focused on Southern
California, from the Mexican border to Santa Barbara. Our fund is focused
companies that are centered on intellectual property. Our area of expertise
is telecommunications, semiconductor software infrastructure, semiconductor
processing and chemical processing, as well as materials science. We are
not currently involved in biotechnology.
In the venture capital industry we've had a significant level of specialization,
particularly as the industry has returned to its roots of building management
teams to develop strategic plans targeting and focusing on specific opportunities.
Many venture funds are finding that if they form a cohesive team of experts
who understand particular industries, particularly verticals, that they
can have a higher likelihood of success in building these new companies,
so we have focused in that area.
Smart Technology Ventures has worked with spin-offs from universities,
including UCLA. When a company is spun off from a university, one of the
key issues is that often the founders of the company come from the university
culture, a research culture. That is different from a corporation or entrepreneurial
start-up. As a result, there are challenges in melding the immense intellectual
capabilities of these kinds of founders with the necessity and priorities
of developing a business team that is focused, that is disciplined, and
that has very specific objectives that need to be achieved for commercialization
of a new technology. I like to differentiate, therefore, between corporate
spin-offs, university spin-offs, and other types of start-up companies.
Background for commercializing nanotechnology: Clearly these are not
the best or worst of times, but certainly are challenging times in high
technology. We are in a kind of cyclical recession in the technology sector.
The downturn seems to be very concentrated in telecommunications. We've
had these cycles before going back to the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s.
They are tied to the general economic cycle and global economic conditions,
but also can be specific to certain industries that have built up a certain
level of over-capacity, where demand has not really kept pace, or where
revenue and sales have not kept up with expectations. Certainly with the
Internet boom there was tremendous excitement and enthusiasm about telecommunications,
but we've faced bottlenecks and challenges. We've gotten ahead of ourselves
in building some of the infrastructure that supports the Internet, and
we're seeing some of the pain of that now in terms of the over-capacity
in our optical backbone and so forth.
Returns to venture capital funds and to corporations investing in venture
capital have declined and gone negative. There have been some major write-offs
by large corporate funds. There has been about a 90 percent reduction
in corporate venture capital investment.
We are seeing a venture capital (VC) investment climate that is dominated
by the traditional kind of VCs. There is definitely a tendency for companies
to move down the risk-reward curve. You expect this in a recessionary
environment. Venture capital firms are investing in later-stage companies,
and they're putting a lot more focus on their existing portfolio companies,
so there is this kind of shift from early stage to later stage investing.
There also seems to be a shift in the segments that are attracting capital,
which is also going to be interesting from the standpoint of emerging
nanotechnology companies.
Clearly there has been a massive decline in e-commerce companies, and
that has then been followed by a major decline in investment in optical
communications and in some of the related telecommunication segments that
supply the infrastructure applications for those e-commerce companies.
At the same time, we've seen a steady increase in investment in biotech
and healthcare-related companies. That is a very interesting trend that
needs to be noted particularly by nanotechnology companies that are looking
at using biological or other types of similar systems.
Again, I think the recent trend in shifting investments to later-stage
companies is going to continue. You tend to see more money being invested
in those situations.
Venture backed IPOs have pretty much collapsed, so we're not seeing a
lot of exits. That explains some of the negative returns we are seeing
as well. So, if you are planning to start a new nanotechnology don't expect
to go IPO any time soon. There's a big backlog ahead of you. The bar you
have to achieve, in terms of what does an emerging company have to demonstrate
to go IPO, has gone a lot higher than it was a few years ago. You have
to show that you have a sustainable business model and that you can generate
revenue and earnings in some predictable fashion that analysts can utilize
to make sensible valuations.
When setting up a new company, think about what you need to do to be
attractive as a potential acquisition. A much larger company hopefully
will pay a good premium or good price for your company and allow the company
to continue to develop its technology and penetrate the market.
Even though investment activity has declined, the amount of money flowing
into venture capital has continued to be quite strong. It will be down
from last year, but nevertheless about $50 billion will probably be flowing
into new funds this year. That's partly driven by the fact that pension
funds as well as other institutional funds have been allocating an increasing
part of their portfolios to venture capital. The percentage that these
funds are investing in VC has actually gone up from the traditional five
percent and now is being targeted at as high as 15 percent. So at a time
when it's getting difficult to profitably deploy that capital and returns
are going negative, there is still a momentum of flow of capital into
the industry. That is good news for entrepreneurs who are forming companies.
It means there's a large pool of capital out there looking for opportunities,
looking for highly disruptive technologies that have the potential of
launching the next big billion dollar companies.
In summary, there are implications of the environment we are in now and
for the next couple of years. Venture capitalists want to avoid science
projects that should be funded by the government, universities or corporate
labs. These are not likely to get funded in the current environment at
least and they are difficult in any case. VCs want to think about achieving
first revenue in three years or less. That reflects the more near-term
focus and the risk aversion that's out there among investors.
We need to work on the way we regulate these technologies and take into
account that we are really on a new frontier, working at the molecular
level, and so we're going to have to think about the fact that you just
don't regulate the same way. I think there needs to be progress and change
in that area.
Mihail C. Roco
Senior Advisor, National Science Foundation
Chair, NSTC Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology
I see in this event an opportunity to better connect the National Nanotechnology
Initiative research providers and industries with each other, and eventually
to build connections between industries that are already involved in the
field, and particularly to involve new industries in nanotechnology. At
this moment we have a relatively small number of companies involved in
nanotechnology. One objective, in the interval of a few years, is to spread
the idea that companies need to prepare for a paradigm shift that will
happen 10 years from now throughout U.S. industry.
We have advanced the idea that nanoscience is not dealing with small
things, but with new phenomena. Nanoscience is providing a unity in science
and engineering, creating the tools for a more efficient length-scale
for manufacturing. Rearranging matter at the nanoscale creates the opportunity
to do anything more economically with smaller amounts of material and
smaller amounts of energy. I should mention that this effort is already
ahead of schedule. When President Clinton announced this initiative he
said, "Imagine things that can happen in 20-30 years," and took
three examples. Those three ideas that he proposed: molecular electronics,
nanotube reinforced materials, and detection of cancer, all are already
in a much more advanced phase of development than predicted.
A major change in perception is that industry now recognizes a paradigm
shift in nanotechnology. Whether in molecular electronics, quantum computing,
or DNA, in 5-10 years there will be a change in paradigm. The United States
now has a leadership role in electronics, biotechnology and several other
technologies. Nanotechnology is a condition for their progress in 10-15
years. How we manage nanotechnology development will be of strategic importance
for the United States.
The United States increased the investment in NNI by 56 percent last
year. All over the world the increase is more than 75 percent in the same
time interval, following about six months after the United States. This
is because most countries, like Japan and the European Community member
states, start the financial year in April or March, whereas the United
States starts in October. Our development has influenced their programs.
The NNI is focused on an interdisciplinary 'horizontal' development of
nanoscience and nanotechnology, while in other countries we see a more
pronounced government interest in the 'vertical' development from research
to specific technological areas.
In the 2001 when we started the financial year, we had six agencies involved.
Now we have 15 departments and independent agencies involved, as can be
seen on our Web site at http://www.nano.gov.
A little history: Informally, the group started at the end of 1996. We
did our homework relatively quietly, and prepared about five documents.
One was a worldwide study reviewing what was happening in the field, and
one was on nanotechnology research directions. Later, we developed additional
materials such as the brochure for the public and the report on societal
implications for nanoscience and nanotechnology. In Oct. 1998, this bottom-up
activity was recognized by the White House and an interagency working
group was appointed under the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC). The working group was elevated in 2000 to the level of an NSTC
subcommittee. In fact, within the Committee on Technology there are two
equally active subcommittees: information technology research and nanotechnology.
A few questions related to this group: First of all, how will we interact
with industry? On nano.gov you will find the list of calls for proposals
and other announcements. In most of them we encourage interaction with
industry. For instance, NSF does not fund industry, except under the SBIR
program, but we encourage partnerships.
We seek to create a database on developments in this field. We have user
facilities, for instance NSF has a national nanofabrication user network
in which five universities have been identified as research institutions
(see http://www.nnun.org). The Department
of Energy is creating three new user facilities. NASA plans to create
three university-based facilities this year, and the Department of Defense
a new university-based center.
NIST will provide assistance to industry in instrumentation standards
and manufacturing. At NSF, three years ago we had about four new awards
under SBIR program in the field of nanotechnology, last year we had about
30 awards including STTR, and this year we have more than 100 proposals
in review. We are developing partnerships with different industrial groups,
for instance with the Semiconductor Industry Association. We plan to create
a database of companies; the results will be posted on nano.gov.
We are holding a series of workshops like this, the Department of Commerce
has taken the lead, and we hope at the end of this series to prepare a
document for industry to encourage networking, continuous mechanisms of
interaction, and better connections with and among research providers
and research users.
Another key challenge for the United States is to create the workforce
for nanotechnology that will be needed 10 to 15 years from now. We are
working on curriculum development, including new courses. We train interdisciplinary
groups, and fund fellowships for students that can move from one department
to another and work in nanotechnology. Currently there are seven such
groups. One such group is at the University of California at Davis, another
at the University of Washington. These are distributed around the country
and we will continue to fund them.
NNI priority in funding for FY 2002 will be given to: research to enable
the nanoscale as the most efficient manufacturing domain; innovative nanotechnology
solutions to biological-chemical-radiological-explosive detection and
protection; development of instrumentation and standards; the education
and training of the new generation or workers for the future industries;
and partnerships to enhance industrial participation in the nanotechnology
revolution. The convergence of nanotechnology with information technology,
modern biology and social sciences will reinvigorate discoveries and innovation
in almost all areas of the economy.
In conclusion, within 10 to 15 years from now nanoscale science and engineering
will affect our lives in a significant manner. In the beginning it will
be so-called "rudimentary nanotechnology," but it will become
more complex in time. Significant implications will be on knowledge and
our comprehension of the world. Industry, the medical field, and sustainable
development will be core areas of transformation.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE BREAKOUT SESSIONS
Session I - Bioscience
There is plenty of room in the nano/bio area for additional funding.
That is, there is room for excellent science to be funded.
There are opportunities for new technologies such as diagnostics and
pharmaceuticals arising from biochips.
There is a lot of science that has application but there are only a few
examples of companies that have been spun off with varying levels of success.
"Nanotechnology" must be defined as it exists; whether or not
it is a field or a set of tools or if it is manipulation at the molecular
level or knowledge of interactions of systems. We need to discuss what
are the defining elements that make us able to talk about nanotechnology.
Science isn't that much of the issue in industry; manufacturing and manufacturing
for reliability is. Reliability is a major issue in bringing a product
to the marketplace.
The role of legislation in giving Federally funded organizations the
right to take title to their intellectual property is seen as an important
policy issue.
The introduction of new drugs requires a discussion between insurance/HMOs
and physicians who do not easily talk to each other. Whether or not you
do that in a framework of a regulatory process or in some other kind of
engagement is something that needs to be addressed.
New technology and interaction in personal lives. Privacy issues, economic
accessibility, information and full consent - all of these are seen as
topics that will arise as we move forward with nanotechnology applications
and insertion into the marketplace. We need to be prepared for that.
We need some kind of infrastructure at the universities, as well as the
curriculum to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers.
That was really the state's intention when it created all of the institutes
for science and innovation, and in particular the CNSI.
Networking - more is better. It is important to include (at these meetings)
regulators and other government representatives such as Congress, the
FDA, and the Patent and Trademark Office.
Session II - Information Technology
More basic science is needed. Over the next few years we are going to
bump up against the limits of what current technology can do. Breakthroughs
in basic science will be needed to move us into different directions to
make the kind of gains we want.
The Internet boom has provided a compressed version of the historical
cycles of discovery, popularity, hype and crash. From the financial point
of view, this is a good time to proceed in nanotechnology research and
development in order to be ready for the wave that will occur.
The government is looking for guidance about where it can it put its
money to get good effects and leverage it the most effectively.
Nanotechnology makes more sense as a field as opposed to artificial intelligence,
which is too broad. Ways to avoid the hype-boom-crash cycle that AI goes
through in every 10 or 15 years must be explored in order to avoid some
of these excesses.
Questions that have already been raised include the "gap" between
science and the commercial marketplace. There is a bridge that needs to
be crossed, from university laboratory to something tangible that a commercial
venture can pick up.
It is important to get the right balance, the right mix, of people (business,
government, scientists, etc.) at these conferences.
California may be considered the center of nanotechnology. This is important
for the state as well as for new companies getting into nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology needs a single disruptive or "killer" application.
At this time it is not clear what that is or will be, but a universal
application that is readily comprehended will certainly raise consciousness
toward nanotechnology.
Session III - Aerospace
The aerospace industry is a cauldron for the development of nascent technologies
and the science associated with those technologies, for historical reasons.
One foreseeable benefit and goal of nanotechnology related to the aerospace
industry may be the production of cheaper satellites with extended mission
life.
At this point, the fundamental obstacle is that "people still don't
know what nanotechnology is." There is at present a lack of infrastructure
to characterize things on a nanoscale. Standardization will remain a major
issue. There is a need for NIST to set standards in nanotechnology as
it does in many other areas.
Large companies like Boeing will pick up on new technologies once they
are made available (e.g., in the form of materials) for use in their products.
The immediate needs of industry and companies like Boeing can be summarized
in the following way: "Nanotechnology is here. When it is ready,
we will adopt it." These new technologies may come through the automotive
industry. When they are developed, they will be incorporated into the
products of other companies. One example is weight reduction in structural
materials of vehicles or aircraft, resulting in increased payload capacities.
Everyone is trying to make stronger, lighter materials. Companies already
working in metals, for example, will try to make stronger and lighter
materials. Progress in nanotechnology will encourage this type of development
in established industries.
Products based on innovations in nanotechnology will appear. Accordingly,
investors will follow successes. When disruptive technologies strike,
there is a corresponding response from traditional industries. While nanotechnology,
like other emerging technologies, may be overestimated, in the long run
nanotechnology "will outdistance our wildest expectations."
Tools are needed to test and validate the progress of nanotechnology.
This is because the cost of failure on the civilian commercial side in
aerospace is very high. However, the field will be full of opportunities
and, although companies will need compelling reasons to adopt products,
nanotechnology will touch all areas from space to electronics to healthcare
issues.
Since we are moving toward self-assembly in nanotechnology, the concept
of scaling is important in order to "wrap ourselves around nanosystems."
As a practical matter, self-assembly will be needed to build useful structures
at the molecular level.
New products and materials will make a gradual paradigm shift to multifunctionality.
Consumers will expect more intelligence per mass from products. For example,
clothing might contain physiological monitors.
The government's role and involvement in the progress of nanotechnology
is important for this interdisciplinary field to evolve. This field will
need support from government to make sure that there is funding for commercialization
and research. Funding should encompass the concept of "gap funding"
to address the gap between basic fundamental research and commercialization.
There is a chasm where businesses can become lost and are not viable due
to lack of funding.
Nanotechnology programs must be legitimized over time. Metrics on private
revenue, external investment and jobs created will be needed to legitimize
nanotechnology. This is important as a tangible measure of viability in
the research area.
There is a consensus that more meetings like this are needed and that
government should be involved. As nanotechnology progresses, large companies
will get to know small companies and a database of information will be
needed. This information should be available for the financial community
because at present the understanding of nanotechnology "can be described
in whatever terms you desire."
Because nanotechnology is multidisciplinary by its nature, interdisciplinary
training programs at the high school and university levels are required.
This necessitates the re-establishment of a school curriculum that includes
areas such as quantum mechanics.
KEYNOTE REMARKS
An Extraordinary Time in the Sciences
Albert Carnesale, Chancellor, University of California, Los Angeles
Welcome to UCLA. And thank you for taking part in today's workshop on
"Nanotechnology: Opportunity and Challenge for Industry." I'm
delighted to see this distinguished group of leaders, representing industry
in Southern California, to be sure, and also representing the arenas of
finance, technology, education, and government. The breadth of your own
activities and interests is indicative of the sweeping impacts that advances
in nanotechnology undoubtedly will have on our society. I want to thank
the UCLA sponsors of today's program: the California NanoSystems Institute,
directed by Martha Krebs, and the School of Public Policy and Social Research,
led by Dean Barbara Nelson. And I want to acknowledge the other entities
responsible for this workshop: the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office,
the National Science Foundation, and the Los Angeles Regional Technology
Alliance. Many thanks to all of you.
This is an extraordinary time for most fields in the sciences. Consider
the "new biology," the dazzling advances in biomedicine and
genetics; the IT revolution; biomedical engineering; and the rise of whole
new fields such as bioinformatics. Nanotechnology is among the most exciting
- and the most promising - of these developments. To be able to manipulate
structures at the molecular level - atom by atom - is to achieve unprecedented
understanding and control over the fundamental building blocks of all
physical things. As you know, future advances in this technology could
transform the way almost everything is designed and made. As you also
know, advances in this technology raise a host of important and compelling
policy questions. Such questions have brought you together today, and
I commend all of you, not only for seeking the best answers to these questions,
but for confronting them now, while the field of nanoscience is still
in its infancy.
The Federal Government has joined with the scholarly, technical, and
academic communities in recognizing the vast potential of nanoscience.
And so we have the National Nanotechnology Initiative, worth half a billion
dollars, as a top science and technology priority for the United States.
Naturally, UCLA is pleased that 70 percent of the new funding proposed
under the Nanotechnology Initiative will go to university-based research.
In keeping with the land-grant tradition, public universities such as
UCLA have a distinguished history of conducting basic and applied research
to benefit our communities, our states, and our nation.
The National Science Foundation has played an important role in those
partnerships for half a century now. As part of its 50th anniversary celebration,
the NSF compiled a "Nifty 50" list of "NSF-funded inventions,
innovations, and discoveries that have become commonplace in our lives."
Number 28 on that list is the Internet. Through the efforts of Professor
Leonard Kleinrock and his graduate students, UCLA became one of the first
nodes on the ARPANET, the interconnection of networks that eventually
became the Internet. Number 8 is Bucky Balls - the geodesic-shaped carbon
molecules noted for their strength. A distinguished team of scholars from
UCLA's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry has made important contributions
to this field, as did UCLA Professor Jim Heath [scientific co-director
of the CNSI], when he was a graduate student at Rice. And number 33 on
the list is nanotechnology. UCLA is asserting itself as a leader in this
emerging field.
University-government partnerships are more important now than ever.
And often they are three-way partnerships involving the private sector
as well - which is the case with the California NanoSystems Institute
at UCLA and UC Santa Barbara.
In December 2000, Governor Gray Davis named the California NanoSystems
Institute as one of three "California Institutes for Science and
Technology." The state is providing funds to these institutes in
order to propel the California economy forward and benefit all Californians.
CNSI is a broad-based effort; a series of partnerships:
- Two UC campuses - UCLA and UC Santa Barbara.
- Other universities (including Caltech).
- The National Laboratories managed by the University of California.
- The private sector- 30 corporate partners to date, including Hewlett-Packard
and Sun Microsystems.
- A variety of academic disciplines are involved - including the physical
and life sciences, engineering, medicine, and policy studies.
- A partnership between the people of California and their state.
The team we have assembled to lead the institute is impressive in the
scope of their knowledge, in the breadth of their experience, and in the
expanse of their imaginations.
- Director Martha Krebs, the former director of the Office of Science,
U.S. Department of Energy.
- Scientific Co-Directors James Heath, UCLA Department of Chemistry
and Biochemistry and Professor Evelyn Hu, UC Santa Barbara Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Materials.
The institute is poised to explore all aspects of nanotechnology. I like
to think of it as a prototype for the "centers of excellence"
envisioned by the National Nanotechnology Initiative - research centers
that develop and use the tools of this emerging discipline, while also
building the partnerships crucial to advancing the discipline in years
to come. This is not an entirely new role for research universities, given
our long-standing partnerships with Federal granting agencies such as
the National Science Foundation
But it reflects the fact that research
universities like UCLA are ideally positioned for, and equipped for, advancing
knowledge that will have both societal and economic advantages. We are
enormously proud of the CNSI, and what it means for the future of UCLA,
California, our nation, and beyond.
I'm told that today's workshop is the first of several to be held in
the next 18 months throughout the United States. I am delighted and proud
- but not surprised - that this process is starting here at UCLA. Again,
I am pleased to welcome you to our campus. I trust that your continued
discussions will be fruitful, and I hope that you will continue to turn
to UCLA for innovation and leadership.
Shaping Policy for Nanoscience Development
by Bruce Mehlman, Assistant Secretary of Technology Policy
U.S. Department of Commerce
It's truly an honor to be here today. I am still awed every time I get
the chance to speak on behalf of the United States Government. And I'm
sincerely humbled to be in the company of such distinguished leaders,
entrepreneurs, innovators and visionaries.
We live in an incredibly exciting time. The Wright Brothers probably
thought the same thing down in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, nearly a century
ago. Little did they realize that only 66 years after their 12 second,
125-foot flight, our quest for discovery and desire to overcome the apparent
limitations of natural laws would take us to the moon and back.
I can only imagine what the world will look like when my children reach
my age. But imagining that world - and trying to shape it - are precisely
what brings us all here today.
Nanoscience and nanotechnology stand as the next great frontiers for
exploration and conquest - perhaps the greatest frontiers we've ever faced.
The ability to manipulate matter at the atomic level - to build new materials
and devices molecule-by-molecule - promises more change in the next 30
years that we saw in all of the 20th century.
For example, imagine single molecule transistors, or computer switches
that are only 3 atoms thick and can assemble themselves. Imagine smart
drug molecules that patrol your blood stream and release antibiotics only
in the presence of an infection. Well actually, you don't need to imagine
those things. They're already here. Companies are already using nanotechnology
to make plastics stronger, paints more durable, semiconductors faster
and clothes more UV-resistant.
And if you're as impressed as I am by these existing developments, just
wait, because we've only scratched the surface. Imagine having your clothes
respond and adjust to changing weather conditions, monitoring you vital
signs, and protecting wounds. Imagine programmable machines that travel
through your bloodstream, supplementing your immune system or performing
genetic surgery, or artificial red blood cells that permit scuba diving
without oxygen tanks or keep your organs safely oxygenated 4 hours after
your heart stops beating.
With such incredible possibilities, it is no wonder the National Science
Foundation predicts the market for nanotechnology-based products and services
will reach over $1 trillion by 2015 in the United States alone. Leading
experts gathered by NSF predicted that nanotechnology's impact will be
at least as significant as antibiotics, the integrated circuit and man-made
polymers were in the 20th century.
Of course, Americans are not the only ones to recognize the importance
and potential of this emerging field. While we're putting $422 million
into nanotechnology R&D this year, foreign investments will total
almost twice that at $835 million. Everyone expects that the first country
to make the big breakthrough may be poised to become the economic giant
of the future.
To lead in an increasingly competitive global environment, and to see
nanotechnology realize its potential, we'll need several things. First,
we'll need a long-term commitment to fund many years of research. Through
the National Nanotechnology Initiative - a collaborative effort among
Federal agencies - the Federal Government aims to ensure consistent and
coordinated investments in the research needed to unlock nanotechnology's
potential. But we will need sustained private investment in R&D as
well.
Second, we'll need to establish nanotechnology centers of excellence
that attract and support the top technologists in the world. California
clearly has a commitment to leading in this field, and other states are
also moving aggressively forward. With the California Nanosystems Institute
right here at UCLA, the Los Angeles area could emerge as the leading nanotechnology
cluster - who would have thought that anything on such a small scale could
succeed so close to Hollywood?
Third, we'll need to create close linkages among university, government
and industry researchers, business leaders and entrepreneurs, the capital
community, education and training institutions, and policy makers at the
Federal, state and local levels.
And finally, we'll need to make sure our policy makers get it, and get
the policies right to support innovation and development. That's why we
recommended to our sister agencies in the NNI that we reach out to the
business and investment communities with this and future conferences.
At the Office of Technology Policy in the Department of Commerce, our
job is to partner with industry to promote policies that maximize technology's
contribution to U.S. global competitiveness and innovative capacity. We
try to support the commercialization of existing technologies by identifying
and building supportive policy frameworks, and we strive to anticipate
policy barriers to the successful commercialization of critical emerging
technologies.
Nanotechnology already presents significant new challenges for policy
makers, with more likely to come. For example, can our health care systems
accommodate dramatically new procedures, drugs and opportunities? Can
our education systems rethink their organizational structures to produce
technologists with the multi-disciplinary expertise required? What will
our public safety infrastructure need to protect against new, deadlier
threats and the inevitable unintended consequences of a paradigm-shifting
technology, such as quantum computing that can break any encryption? How
will longer life-spans impact pension and entitlement systems, or workforce
needs and supply? What will these new technologies mean for our privacy,
and how will consumers react when we offer them nanorobots to travel in
their blood - which, let's face it, are a lot scarier than so-called "frankenfoods"
or nuclear power? How do global economies prepare for the ultimate disruptive
technology, one that could tear down as many businesses and business models
as it generates? And how might we ensure that the United States and our
citizens are the first to capitalize on the economic, military and social
potential of nanotechnologies?
Of course nanotechnology also offers great opportunities for policy makers,
and it is incumbent upon us to identify and aggressively pursue them.
Nanotechnology could improve our environment, reducing worldwide energy
consumption, de-radiating nuclear waste and counteracting pollution. It
could solve scarcity challenges that keep food, safe water and quality
health care out of reach for too many people.
With such serious stakes, it's very important to get the policies right.
That is where efforts such as this conference become essential. This workshop
is the first in a series that will be held throughout the country, aiming
to bring the insights, needs and opinions of industry and academic leaders
together with government policy makers and researchers.
It will take a public-private partnership to ensure we get the billions
of dollars, millions of research hours and thousands of committed scientists
we'll need to realize nanotechnology's potential. We will need to work
together to ensure a stable and supportive policy environment, identifying
barriers and recommending solutions. And we'll need to broaden our community
even further to find the wisdom required to use these new powers with,
prudence, care and humility.
The good news is that the Bush Administration is very committed to science
and technology. Since taking office, the President has asked Congress
to put $1 billion into improving math and science education; asked for
trade promotion authority to remove barriers to the free flow of goods,
capital and information; and proposed the highest funding levels for basic
research in the history of the country - $95 billion for 2002. And President
Bush proposed increasing Federal investments in the National Nanotechnology
Initiative by 23% to $519 million, in 2002.
We look forward to learning from you today and working with you going
forward. And we thank you very much for joining us today.
WORKSHOP CHARTER
Nanotechnology: Opportunity and Challenge for Industry
Nanoscale science and technology reaches across the traditional scientific
and engineering disciplines and arises from the growing confluence of
knowledge and tools that permit the molecule-by-molecule observation,
manipulation, or assembly of biological and inorganic materials. The applications
of this knowledge will reach broadly: molecular and spin electronics that
will provide a new technology base for computing; energy efficient processes
for fabricating near net shape devices and coatings; multi-functional
materials intentionally designed and self-assembled; new technologies
for national defense; diagnosis and treatment of disease at the molecular
scale rather than symptomatically.
Both large and small companies have begun to invest in the revolution
that is underway at our Nation's universities. The Federal Government
has created a multiagency National Nanotechnology Initiative that is providing
more than $500 million annually to support research at and collaborations
between universities and industry. States such as California and New York
have invested directly in their public universities to establish nanotechnology
centers recognizing the need to build local knowledge in this area and
to provide the next generation of scientists and engineers, who will create
and develop "nanoapplications."
This workshop will bring together leaders from industry, government,
academia and the financial community to explore in more detail their views
on the future of nanotechnology. The workshop is planned as one of four
over the next 18 months in various regions of the country. This workshop
will draw attendees from the western United States predominantly and will
focus on the importance of nanotechnology to three areas of application:
aerospace, information technology/electronics, and biotechnology/medicine.
In each of these areas, the workshop will address questions such as:
- What are the major technical challenges these industries face in order
to exploit nanotechnology?
- What scientific opportunities or trends are on the horizon of nanotechnology
that have not yet been fully captured by industry?
- What are the major obstacles that prevent the investment in and application
of new nanotechnology in these industries; e.g., in the financial, regulatory,
or policy arenas?
- How can we facilitate the networking of industry, business, academic
and government organizations?
The results and recommendations of the workshop will be recorded and
provided to attendees and the Federal sponsors. Combined with the recommendations
of the other regional meetings, the workshop will inform the programmatic
and policy discussions that will affect future decisions with respect
to nanotechnology.
The workshop will take place at UCLA on September 10, 2001 under the
leadership of the California NanoSystems Institute and the UCLA School
of Public Policy and Social Research. The principal sponsors are the Department
of Commerce, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Nanotechnology
Coordinating Office and the National Science Foundation.
BIOGRAPHIES
Joel Balbien Ph.D., CFA
Managing Member
Smart Technology Ventures
1801 Century Park West, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Dr. Joel Balbien was a manager of Smart Technology Ventures I and II,
and is a Managing Member of Smart Technology Ventures III. He has worked
with STV's founder, David Nazarian, for three years building Smart Technology
Ventures' portfolio of more than forty companies. Balbien now serves on
the boards of directors of Transilica, Inc., Holl Technologies Company,
Eternal Systems, and Maxoptix, and as a Board Advisor for Continuous Computing
Corporation. Dr. Balbien has been a frequent speaker within the venture
capital community including presentations at LARTA conferences and the
MIT/Caltech Forum. He has also served as a mentor for the Southern California
Venture Capital Forum.
Prior to joining Smart Technology Ventures, Balbien was vice president
of business development for a private aerospace holding company and an
assistant treasurer at Sempra Energy (formerly Pacific Enterprises). He
also worked as an operations research analyst for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Balbien received his M.S. and Ph.D. from CalTech.
John H. Belk
Associate Technical Fellow, Phantom Works
Manager, Technology Planning & Acquisition
S276-1240
The Boeing Company
P.O. Box 516
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516
Mr. John H. Belk is an Associate Technical Fellow in the Phantom Works
at the Boeing Company. He has developed and nurtured various aerospace-related
technologies to solve specific system and manufacturing problems. He has
over 22 years of experience in testing and quantitative evaluation of
materials and optical systems for all stages of the product's life. He
has contributed to new manufacturing processes for composite materials,
optical fiber sensors for smart structures, MEMS-based sensing systems,
and satellite-to-satellite laser communications while conceiving, winning,
and managing millions of dollars in research and development funding for
Boeing in these areas, obtaining six issued patents along the way. He
is now working with others across the Boeing enterprise to develop a coordinated
nanoscience/ nanotechnology plan for all of Boeing's activities. He is
or has been a member of the Optical Society of America, the American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the International Society of Photo-Instrumentation
Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Society
for the Advancement of Materials and Process Engineering.
Scott Broadley
Vice President
Broadley-James Corporation
Scott Broadley is the Vice President of Broadley-James Corporation. He
received his B.A. in Chemistry from the University of California, Davis
in 1978. He has designed, engineered, and developed electrochemical sensors
for over 20 years. He co-authored a paper on pH monitoring of pure water
(Wilson, D. L.; Broadley, S. T. Proceedings of Ultrapure Water Expo, Philadelphia,
April 2-4, 1990.), and co-authored two ASTM procedures on high-purity
water pH measurement. In addition, in 1992 he was granted a patent for
a pH sensor (U.S. Patent #5,147,524 and Canada #2,060,946). His knowledge
of electrochemical sensors, expertise in designing and bringing to market
numerous sensors uniquely qualifies him to lead in the development of
a microfluidic flowing-junction pH sensor.
Albert Carnesale
Chancellor
UCLA Chancellor's Office
2147 Murphy Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405
Albert Carnesale became Chancellor of UCLA on July 1, 1997, and was formally
inaugurated on May 15, 1998, as the eighth chief executive in the University's
history. He holds faculty appointments in the Department of Policy Studies
at the School of Public Policy and Social Research and in the Department
of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the School of Engineering and
Applied Science.
Before assuming the helm of UCLA, Chancellor Carnesale was at Harvard
University for 23 years, serving in numerous capacities. He joined the
Cambridge campus in 1974 as the Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Public
Policy and Administration at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
His teaching and research endeavors focused on international security
and arms control, with an emphasis on policies associated with nuclear
weapons and strategies for their use and non-use; international issues
related to nuclear energy; and the impact of technological change on defense
and arms control policy. In 1981, he assumed the role of the Kennedy School's
Academic Dean, acting as the principal advisor to the Dean on matters
of faculty personnel, research, and teaching. In November 1991, Dr. Carnesale
became Dean of the Kennedy School, serving as its principal academic and
administrative officer. In this capacity, he directed the activities of
100 faculty members, 70 researchers, and 350 staff personnel.
July 1994 saw Dr. Carnesale's appointment as Provost of Harvard University.
As Provost, he served as Deputy to the President of the university, oversaw
academic and administrative programs, coordinated the work of Harvard's
central administration, supervised information-technology activities,
and represented the university in external affairs and development. Earlier
in his career, Dr. Carnesale was a member of the faculty at North Carolina
State University from 1962 to 1969, and again from 1972 to 1974. In the
intervening years, he held a position in government as part of the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1969 to 1972. In addition, he
worked in private industry for Martin Marietta Corporation from 1957 to
1962.
Dr. Carnesale earned B.M.E. and M.S. degrees in mechanical engineering
at Cooper Union in 1957 and Drexel University in 1961, respectively. In
1966, he received a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering at North Carolina State
University.
Scott R. Carter, Ph.D.
Licensing Associate
Office of Technology Transfer
California Institute of Technology
1200 E. California Blvd M/C 210-85
Pasadena, CA 91125
Scott R. Carter is a Licensing Associate for the California Institute
of Technology's Office of Technology Transfer. He manages Caltech's Life
Sciences patent portfolio and is responsible for licensing a variety of
technologies. Scott received a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Caltech and is
a registered Patent Agent.
Michael R. Darby
Warren C. Cordner Professor of Money and Financial Market
The Anderson School at UCLA
Anderson Complex C511
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1481
The Honorable Michael R. Darby currently serves as the Warren C. Cordner
Professor of Money and Financial Markets in the John E. Anderson Graduate
School of Management and in the Department of Economics at the University
of California, Los Angeles, and as Director of the John M. Olin Center
for Policy in the Anderson School. He is also Professor of Policy Studies
at the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research. Professor Darby
served in a number of senior positions in the Reagan and Bush administrations
including Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy (1986-89),
Member of the National Commission on Superconductivity (1988-89), Under
Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs (1989-92), and Administrator
of the Economics and Statistics Administration (1990-92). During this
period, Darby began his association with the NBER and was a Visiting Fellow
at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
Professor Darby is the widely cited author of eight books and monographs
and numerous other professional publications. He also serves or served
as a member of the editorial boards of the American Economic Review, Contemporary
Policy Issues, Contemporary Economic Policy, and International Reports.
Minoo Dastoor
Senior Advisor
Office of Aerospace Technology
NASA
300 E St. SW
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Dr. Minoo Dastoor is the senior advisor to the Associate Administrator,
Office of Aerospace Technology at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
A member of the senior staff at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he
is currently on a special assignment at NASA to develop and coordinate
the Agency's Nano/Bio Technology Plan. A central feature of the Plan is
to advance technologies that exploit the huge potential resulting from
the convergence between nanotechnology, biology and information systems.
The Plan focuses on three areas: 1) nanomaterials, 2) nanoelectronics
and information technology, and 3) sensors and microspacecrafts. The goal
of the Plan is to provide the capabilities anticipated for future space
mission and advanced aeronautic applications. Emphasis is on a dramatic
reduction in size per mass, and an increase in strength (as well as intelligence)
per mass, tailored specifically for the unique NASA needs; i.e. autonomous
performance at ultra low power levels and in the hostile space environment.
Dr. Dastoor received his Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from the
UCLA School of Medicine.
James R. Heath
Scientific Director
California NanoSystems Institute
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
3608A Geology
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1569
James R. Heath received a B.Sc. degree in chemistry from Baylor University
in 1984, and a Ph.D. degree in chemistry from Rice University in 1988,
where he studied in the group of Richard E. Smalley. Heath was a Miller
Postdoctoral Fellow at UC Berkeley from 1988-91, where he worked in the
laboratory of Richard J. Saykally. He was a research staff member at the
IBM T.J. Watson Research Labs. in Yorktown Heights, New York from 1991-94.
In 1994, he left IBM to join the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
at UCLA. He was promoted to tenure in 1996, and to Full Professor in 1997.
He is currently the scientific director of the California NanoSystems
Institute (CNSI), which was formed by California's Governor Grey Davis
in December 2000. Heath was a David and Lucile Packard Fellow (1994-1999),
and an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow (1997). He is a Fellow of the American Physical
Society, and has received the Jules Springer Award in Applied Physics
(2000); the Feynman Prize (2000); and the Sackler Prize in the Physical
Sciences (2001). Heath's research interests focus on 'artificial' quantum
dot solids and quantum phase transitions in those solids, molecular electronics
architecture, devices, and circuitry, and the spectroscopy and imaging
of transmembrane proteins in physiological environments.
Michael J. Heller, Ph.D.
Chief Technical Officer, Company Founder
Nanogen, Inc.
10398 Pacific Center Ct.
San Diego, CA 92102
Dr. Heller is a founder of the company and has served as its Chief Technical
Officer since September 1993. In November 1991, Dr. Heller co-founded
Nanogen's former parent company, Nanotronics, and since that time has
served as Nanotronics' Vice President of Research. Dr. Heller co-founded
and served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Integrated DNA
Technologies from 1987 to 1989, and from 1984 to 1987 served as Director
of Molecular Biology for Molecular Biosystems, Inc. Prior to 1984, he
served as Supervisor of DNA Technology and Molecular Biology for Standard
Oil Company. Dr. Heller received a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from Colorado
State University.
Evelyn L. Hu
Professor and Director, QUEST
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9560
Professor Hu's research is focused on electronics and photonics: high-resolution
fabrication techniques for semiconductor device structures, process-related
materials damage, contact/interface studies, superconductivity. Before
joining UCSB in 1984, Professor Hu worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories,
developing microfabrication and nanofabrication techniques to facilitate
the study of superconducting and semiconducting devices and circuits.
She has continued those research themes at UCSB, through a variety of
collaborative efforts, examining processes critical for the fabrication
and operation of superconducting, electronic and optical devices. In particular,
she has focused on ion-assisted chemical etching techniques having high
spatial resolution, photo-driven processing tuned to the unique optical
properties of the materials, and passivation treatments to enhance optical
and electrical properties of structures at submicron dimensions. She has
studied the formation of high quality, heterogeneous interfaces, such
as those between semiconductors and superconductors, oxide and semiconductor,
or two non lattice-matched semiconductors. She is currently serving as
Director of QUEST, the NSF Science and Technology Center for Quantized
Electronic Structures. She as well directs Nanotech, the UCSB component
of the NSF National Nanofabrication Users Network. She has served as Vice
Chair (1989-92), and subsequently Chair (1992-94) of the ECE Department.
Professor Hu received her Ph.D. from Columbia University. She received
the Tau Beta Pi Outstanding Faculty Award in ECE for 1989-90. Professor
Hu is a Fellow of the APS and IEEE. In 1995, she was awarded an honorary
Doctor of Engineering from Glasgow University.
Bruce E. Koel
Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science
Seaver Science Center, SSC 606
920 W. 37th Street, University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0482
Bruce E. Koel is Professor of the Department of Chemistry and Adjunct
Professor of Materials Science at the University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Chemistry from Emporia
State University and obtained his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University
of Texas at Austin, where he began his work on surface chemistry. He was
a Miller Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley.
From 1983 until his promotion with tenure in 1989, he was an Assistant
and Associate Professor of Chemistry and Fellow of the Cooperative Institute
for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado
at Boulder. There, awards included a Dreyfus Foundation Grant for New
Faculty and an Exxon Education Foundation Award. In 1990, he moved to
USC and was promoted to Professor of Chemistry in 1993. At USC, he was
awarded an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship, given Union Carbide Innovation
Research Awards, and named to several Who's Who lists. He is a Fellow
of the APS and AVS. His professional services include being Chairman of
the Department of Chemistry at USC, Chairman of the AVS Surface Sci. Division,
and membership on the Editorial Advisory Board of Langmuir. In 1993 he
established a new Gordon Conference entitled "Chemical Reactions
at Surfaces", and he was Vice-Chair in 1995 and Chair in 1997 for
this Conference. An author of over 170 published papers, including several
review articles and book chapters, he has given over 20 invited lectures
at national and international scientific meetings during the past 5 years.
His research interests include the structure and bonding of reactive molecules
on surfaces, chemical modification of surface properties, and molecular
robotics.
Martha A. Krebs
Director, California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI)
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Box 957151
Los Angeles, CA 90095-7151
Dr. Martha Krebs is the Institute Director of the newly established California
NanoSystems Institute (CNSI). She is responsible for the overall leadership,
strategic direction and administration of the Institute. The Institute
is a partnership between UCLA and UC Santa Barbara and carries out its
work on both campuses. The Institute will focus on the understanding and
design of nanostructures and their integration into complex systems with
new properties beyond those already found in nature. In partnership with
industry, the Institute will create new technologies and the next generation
of scientists and engineers for the information, medical and manufacturing
sectors.
Prior to joining the CNSI, Dr. Krebs was a senior Fellow at the Institute
for Defense Analysis, where she led studies in R&D management, planning
and budgeting. From 1993 to 2000, Dr. Krebs served as Assistant Secretary
and Director of the Office of Science at the U.S. Department of Energy,
responsible for the $3 billion basic research program that underlay the
Department's energy, environmental and national security missions. She
also had the statutory responsibility for advising the Secretary on the
broad R&D portfolio of the Department and the institutional health
of its National Laboratories. During her tenure, she built international
collaborations in particle physics, strengthened interagency collaborations
for human genome sequencing, synchrotron radiation and global climate
research, and oversaw the advocacy and successful construction of eight
major scientific user facilities. She served on the National Science and
Technology Council's Interagency Committee on Science and its Committee
on the Environment.
From 1983-1993, she served as an Associate Director for Planning and
Development at the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where
she was responsible for strategic planning for research and facilities,
Laboratory technology transfer, and science education and outreach. From
1977-1983, she served on the House Committee on Science first as a Professional
Staff Member and then as Subcommittee Staff Director, responsible for
authorizing DOE non-nuclear energy technologies and energy science programs.
She received her Bachelor's degree and Ph.D. in Physics from the Catholic
University of America. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, a Fellow of
the American Physical Society, a Fellow of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, and a Fellow of the Association of Women in
Science. She is a member of the National Academy Committee on Scientific
and Engineering Personnel and the Navy Research Advisory Committee. She
is married to Philip E. Coyle, III and has four children.
Michael Krieger, Ph.D., J.D.
Partner
Krieger & Nunziato LLP
Michael Krieger is a Los Angeles attorney whose practice is devoted to
intellectual property and related business law for information and other
high technology development, acquisition, licensing, and services. This
focus includes strategic counseling, litigation strategy and preventive
methods to exploit and secure content, inventions and other intellectual
property. His clients range from start-ups to industry leaders, as well
as government entities, the United Nations, and several international
web-based initiatives. He has also served as an expert witness in technology
litigation.
Holding degrees in mathematics (B.S., Caltech; Ph.D., UCLA) and law (J.D.,
UCLA), Mr. Krieger was a member of the MIT mathematics and UCLA Computer
Science faculties as well as Fulbright Scholar, Computer Science (Brazil)
prior to practicing law. With this technical background, he has long been
involved with cutting edge issues at the interface of new technology and
intellectual property law: he was among the first to comment on public
key encryption policy (1978), and more recently has been involved with
trademark/domain name conflicts, the Internet governance "wars,"
and the "open source" software business paradigm. He served
as private advisor to Dr. Jon Postel while the late Internet pioneer/"czar"
implemented the U.S. Government's mandate to privatize Internet administration.
Mr. Krieger serves on the Executive Committee of the California Bar's
Intellectual Property Section and was Editor-in-Chief of its journal,
"New Matter." He is a board member of several organizations
supporting new venture development and teaches Entrepreneurship for UCLA's
Computer Science Department. As a frequent speaker and author on intellectual
property and related topics, Mr. Krieger has developed courses and conference
programs for universities; the Software Publisher's Association, legal
groups and other "IP consumers." He organized and chaired the
1988 International Conference on Computers and Law, participated in the
Computer Law Delegation to China/Japan, and chaired/organized "Essentials
of Technology Transfer" in 1999. Formerly with the venerable Bronson,
Bronson & McKinnon until its dissolution, Mr. Krieger is a partner
of Krieger & Nunziato LLP.
Philip J. Kuekes
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Quantum Science Research
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Palo Alto, California
Philip J. Kuekes is a member of the technical staff at Hewlett-Packard
Laboratories in Palo Alto, California. He got his BS in Physics from Yale
University in1969. He was co-designer of the first commercial array processor
at Raytheon Computer (1970-71). This machine, the first low cost implementation
of the newly discovered (1965) Fast Fourier Transform, was used extensively
for seismic exploration in the 1970s.He was Project Engineer at Ling Electronics
(1972-74) responsible for designing the Ling Array Processor, a state
of the art array processor used by the Naval Research Laboratories for
acoustic vibration testing of satellites. He formed a consulting business,
Kuekes Engineering (1975-1979), to design hardware and microcode for highly
pipelined systems.
Joe Lichtenhan
President
Hybrid Plastics
Dr. Joe Lichtenhan is Co-founder of Hybrid Plastics and serves
as President, and Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. He
is a pioneer and world authority in the field of Nanostructured
Chemicals. His insights into their applications launched the company and
the commercialization efforts for the technology. Prior to starting Hybrid
Plastics, he served for seven years as a Technical and Business
Area Director for the Polymeric Component Applications Program at the
Air Force Research Laboratory. As CEO and COB, Dr. Lichtenhan is responsible
for strategic planning and the corporate governance of Hybrid Plastics.
He received his BS from Kansas State University and a Ph.D. from the University
of California at Irvine. His entrepreneurial activities started at the
age twelve and he has actively participated in a number of sole-proprietorships
including the cofounding of a national mail order company. He also currently
serves on the Advisory Board for the Advanced Technology Program at the
U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
Bruce P. Mehlman
Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy
Technology Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230
Bruce was nominated as Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy by the
President on April 30, 2001, and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May
25, 2001. As Assistant Secretary, Bruce leads the Office of Technology
Policy. Prior to joining the Department of Commerce, Bruce served as Telecommunications
Policy Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc. At Cisco, Bruce worked with public
policy leaders and technologists throughout the information technology
community on issues of broadband deployment wireless networking, e-commerce
strategies, and Internet policy.
Before joining Cisco, Bruce served as Policy Director and General Counsel
at the House Republican Conference, the House of Representatives' leadership
office headed by Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr. At the Conference,
Bruce worked with leadership to help pass Y2K and China trade legislation,
while organizing high tech education and outreach efforts for senior leadership
and committee staff. Bruce formerly served as General Counsel of the National
Republican Congressional Committee under Chairmen Bill Paxon (NY) and
John Linder (GA). Before that Bruce worked as a litigation attorney in
the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding. Bruce received
his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from the University of
Virginia School of Law.
James S. Murday
Superintendent
Chemistry Division
National Research Laboratory
Dr. James S. Murday received a B.S. in Physics from Case Western Reserve
in 1964, and a Ph.D. in Solid State Physics from Cornell in 1970. He joined
the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in 1970 and has been Superintendent
of its Chemistry Division since 1988. From May to August 1997 he served
as Acting Director of Research for the Department of Defense, Research
and Engineering. He is a member of the American Vacuum Society (AVS),
the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society and the Materials
Research Society. For the AVS, he has served as trustee for 1981-1984,
director for 1986-1988, representative to the American Institute of Physics
Governing Board 1986-1992, president for 1991-93, and representative to
the Federation of Materials Societies. Under his direction, both the AVS
and the International Union for Vacuum Science, Technology and Applications
have created a Nanometer Science/Technology Division. He is Executive
Secretary to the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee
on Nanometer Science Engineering and Technology (NSET) and Director of
the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office. His personal research
interests include interface analysis, surface modification technology
and science/technology of nanometer structures.
Barbara J. Nelson
Dean
UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research
3250 Public Policy Building Box 951656
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656
Barbara J. Nelson was named the first permanent dean of the UCLA School
of Public Policy and Social Research on November 1, 1996. Prior to her
appointment as dean and professor of policy studies, she was vice president
and distinguished professor of public policy at Radcliffe College where
her portfolio included academic programs and strategic planning.
Dr. Nelson's fields of expertise include social and economic policies
in industrialized nations, organizational theory and behavior, and social
movements. The author of four books and more than 50 articles and book
chapters, Nelson and co-author Najma Chowdhury won the 1995 Victoria Schuck
Award for Women and Politics Worldwide, bestowed by the American Political
Science Association for the best book in the field of women and politics.
In 1989, Dr. Nelson and historian Sara Evans won the Policy Studies Organizations'
prize for the best book in the field of policy analysis for Wage Justice:
Comparable Worth and the Paradox of Technocratic Reform. Nelson is also
the author of Making an Issue of Child Abuse: Political Agenda Setting
for Social Problems (1984) and American Women and Politics (1984). Dean
Nelson is currently writing two books: Solving Impossible Problems: Organizations
of Concord and the Renewal of Democratic Life, and Leadership for the
Twenty-First Century: Inclusion and Change.
Dean Nelson has made major contributions to policy making and civic life
in the United States and abroad. She was a founding member of the Minnesota
Supreme Court's Task Force on Gender Equity in the Courts. She consulted
with the Swedish government on its Parliamentary Commission on Power and
Democracy, and has worked with several United Nations agencies on questions
of economic development and political participation. Nelson is a member
of the Board of Trustees of the Center for the New West, and a former
board member of Radcliffe College, the National Council for Research on
Women, and the American Political Science Association.
Before her appointment at Radcliffe, Barbara Nelson served on the faculties
of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University and the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the
University of Minnesota, where she served as director of its Center on
Women and Public Policy. She earned her B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in political
science at Ohio State University.
Michael Partsch
Versant Ventures
450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 380
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Michael has worked in the biotech industry for most of the decade. As
a research biochemist, he was a founding member of Neose Technologies,
a company, which was incorporated in 1990 and went public in 1996 (NASDAQ:NTEC).
There, he performed synthesis and purification work on the company's novel
anti-infective compounds. While in business school, Mike spent time as
an associate at the CEO Venture Fund, where he assisted in the management
and oversight of portfolio biotech firms. He has also served in a consulting
capacity for Prolx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mike received a bachelor's degree
in Biology with a minor in Chemistry from the University of Pennsylvania,
and holds an MBA degree from Carnegie Mellon University with dual concentrations
in Finance and Entrepreneurship. Before joining Versant, Michael worked
for two years as a Kauffman Fellow at EDF Ventures in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
where he focused on early-stage Healthcare investments.
Brian M. Pierce
Engineering Fellow and Manager of Advanced RF Technologies Department,
Microwave Center, Raytheon Electronic Systems,
El Segundo, CA
Dr. Pierce has been working for twenty years on the development of advanced
and emerging technologies for radar and electro-optical sensor applications.
He started his industrial career with Hughes Aircraft Company in 1983,
to work on a project related to molecular electronics. Subsequent to this
project, he became the Principal Investigator of a Hughes Aircraft program
concerning device applications of nonlinear optical organic crystals and
polymers, as well as contributing to other R&D efforts. Dr. Pierce
has been the program manager for a number of technology development programs
that include: engineering the microwave dielectric properties of ion-conducting
materials, electron-conducting polymers, and polar dielectrics for lightweight
Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM); laser eye protection technologies; Global
Broadcast Service (GBS) airborne receive antenna; nonlinear magnetic materials
for passive microwave device applications; nonlinear dielectric materials
for electronic scanned antenna applications, and most recently, RF MEMS
technologies for electronically scanned antennas. He is currently the
Manager of the Advanced RF Technologies Department at the Microwave Center
in El Segundo, CA, and helps develop both military and commercial technology
opportunities for Raytheon Electronic Systems.
Dr. Pierce was a Guest Professor for the Danish Technical University
in Lyngby, Denmark. He graduated summa cum laude from UC Riverside. His
M.S. and Ph.D. in Chemistry are also from UC Riverside. He is the author
or co-author of over 30 papers and reports in the fields of nonlinear-optical
phenomena, solid state physics, two-photon spectroscopy, molecular orbital
theory, vibrational normal mode analysis, energy transfer, molecular dynamics
and environmental technology and is responsible for 14 U.S. patents.
Arati Prabhakar
Venture Partner
U.S. Venture Partners
2180 Sand Hill Road, Suite 300
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dr. Arati Prabhakar who joined U.S. Venture Partners as a venture partner
in February 2001, was a program manager and then director of the Microelectronics
Technology Office at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from
1986 to 1993. Through her DARPA investments, she worked with over 300
companies, universities, and other labs to pursue breakthrough technologies
in semiconductor manufacturing, imaging, optoelectronics, and nanoelectronics.
In 1993, President Clinton appointed Arati as the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), where she led the 3000-person
staff until 1997. At NIST, she co-invested with companies in R&D in
areas ranging from healthcare information infrastructure to composite
materials to DNA diagnostics. At DARPA and NIST, Arati and her team funded
the people and the technologies that went on to build a number of companies
with multi-billion-dollar valuations.
In 1997, Arati joined Raychem Corporation as senior vice president and
chief technology officer. She served as a member of the CEO's executive
team and established a process technology program that significantly improved
productivity. She was subsequently vice president and then president of
Interval Research Corporation, which she joined in 1998. Arati focused
Interval on opportunities in broadband technologies and applications,
launching new companies and licensing opportunities. Arati received her
B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University. She received
a M.S. in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Applied Physics from the
California Institute of Technology. Arati began her career as a Congressional
fellow at the Office of Technology Assessment. She is a Fellow of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and of the IC2 Institute.
Stephen Quake, Ph.D.
Founder
Fluidigm Technology
7100 Shoreline Court South
San Francisco, CA 94080
Dr. Quake is a founder of the Fluidigm and a recognized pioneer in the
fields of biophysics and molecular biology. He presently serves as an
Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Physics at the California
Institute of Technology. MIT Technology review magazine named Dr. Quake
one of the "Top 10 innovators in emerging technology. Dr. Quake has
received many scientific awards and honors, including the opportunity
to participate in the N.A.E. Symposium for Frontiers in Science in 2000
and has been awarded the NSF "Career" award in 1997. He has
also served on a variety of scientific committees, including the Biological
Analysis Systems Expert Panel, MITRE, in 1999 and the organizing committee
for the NAS Symposium for Frontiers in Science in 2001. Dr. Quake has
published over 20 papers in the fields of microfluidics and biophysics.
He holds a B.S. in Physics and M.S. in Mathematics from Stanford University
and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Oxford University.
Joe Raguso
Deputy Secretary
California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency
Division of Science, Technology and Innovation
801 "K" Street, Suite 1926
Sacramento, CA 95814
As Deputy Secretary of the California Technology, Trade & Commerce
Agency's Division of Science, Technology and Innovation (DSTI), Joe establishes
the agenda for the division, oversees the management of its programs and
projects, and serves as an advisor to the Governor and the California
Legislature on technology policy.
Before accepting his current appointment, Joe served as President and
CEO of the San Diego Regional Technology Alliance (SDRTA). Joe has a wide
range of experience in both the public and private science and technology
sectors. Prior to his position with the SDRTA, Joe worked in the Office
of Science and Technology Policy and Projects at University of California,
San Diego (UCSD) where he developed strategic partnerships with private
industry and Federal agencies to advance the research goals of UCSD.
Prior to coming to California, Joe served in the Clinton Administration
as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Technology Policy. His
responsibilities included directing "Partnerships for a Competitive
Economy"-a program that works to promote the role technology plays
in economic growth and job creation, implementing the Administration's
competitiveness policies, and developing Federal mechanisms to leverage
state efforts to advance national science and technology goals.
In the private sector, Joe worked for IBM and Galileo Electro-Optics
Corporation. His educational background includes a master's degree in
Technology and Policy from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mihail (Mike) C. Roco
Senior Advisor
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 525
Arlington, VA 22230
Dr. Roco chairs the National Science and Technology Council's subcommittee
on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET), and is Senior
Advisor for Nanotechnology at the National Science Foundation. He also
directs research opportunities in the mechanical and chemical processes,
and coordinates the programs on academic liaison with industry (GOALI).
Prior to joining National Science Foundation, he was Professor of Mechanical
Engineering at the University of Kentucky (1981-1995), and held visiting
professorships at the California Institute of Technology (1988-89), Johns
Hopkins University (1993-1995), Tohoku University (1989), and Delft University
of Technology (1997-98).
Credited with credited 13 inventions, Dr. Roco has authored/co-authored
numerous archival articles and other publications, and several books including
"Slurry Flow: Theory and Practice" (Butterworth, 1991), "Particulate
Two-phase Flow" (Butterworth, 1993) and "Nanostructure Science
and Technology" (Kluwer Acad., 1999). He is a key architect of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative, and coordinated the preparation of
the National Science and Technology Council reports on "Nanotechnology
Research Directions" (NSTC, 1999) and "National Nanotechnology
Initiative" (NSTC, 2000).
Dr. Roco is a Correspondent Member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering
Sciences and a Fellow of the ASME. He was honored as recipient of the
Carl Duisberg Award in Germany, "Burgers Professorship Award"
in Netherlands and the "University Research Professorship" award
in U.S., and more recently the "Engineer of the Year" (1999)
by the U.S. National Society of Professional Engineers and NSF. He has
been co-founder and Chair of the AIChE Particle Technology Forum, Associate
Technical Editor for Journal of Fluids Engineering, and the Editor-in-chief
of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research.
Rohit Shukla
President and CEO
The Los Angeles Regional Technology Alliance (larta)
Rohit K. Shukla is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles
Regional Technology Alliance (larta), a private nonprofit organization
providing information, networking and direct business assistance to the
technology and interactive community in Southern California. larta is
a central point for assisting companies and policymakers in California
in meeting the challenges of the New Economy. Prior to his current position,
Rohit Shukla served as Director of Aerospace and High Technology Business
at the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation. He oversaw the first
Federally funded "defense adjustment" program in the country.
Mr. Shukla has worked in high technology industry since 1983, first as
an entrepreneur and founder of his own small company providing database
and communications solutions and devices, and later as the Executive Director
of The Presidents' Roundtable, a mentor group of CEOs from defense and
aerospace companies throughout the U.S. In October 1997, he was appointed
by Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan to both the Board of Information
Technology Commissioners (which he currently serves as Vice President)
and a special blue ribbon task force on communications infrastructure
for the City of Los Angeles. He has co-authored the City's policy on "open
access" and is currently involved as a regulator in the re-franchising
process. Mr. Shukla holds a Masters in Economics and Politics from Cambridge
University and a Masters in Communications Arts from Loyola Marymount
University, Los Angeles.
Richmond A. Wolf
Associate Director
Office of Technology Transfer
California Institute of Technology
1200 E. California Blvd M/C 210-85
Pasadena, CA 91125
Dr. Rich Wolf is the Associate Director of the Office of Technology Transfer.
He oversees the JPL patent portfolio and is responsible for licensing
various technologies originating at JPL, as well as various information
technologies developed at Caltech. Rich has co-founded and consulted a
number of technology-based start-up companies. He is a graduate of Caltech,
receiving his Ph.D. in Geology in 1997.
Eli Yablonovitch
Professor
UCLA Department of Electrical Engineering
66-147K Engr IV Box 951594
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1594
Dr. Eli Yablonovitch graduated with the Ph.D. degree in Applied Physics
from Harvard University in 1972. He worked for two years at Bell Telephone
Laboratories, and then became a professor of Applied Physics at Harvard.
At the peak of the energy crisis in 1979, he joined Exxon to do research
on photovoltaic solar energy. Then in 1984, he joined Bell Communications
Research, where he was a Distinguished Member of Staff, and also Director
of Solid-State Physics Research. In 1992 he joined the University of California,
Los Angeles, where he is Professor of Electrical Engineering.
His work has covered a broad variety of topics: nonlinear optics, laser-plasma
interaction, infrared laser chemistry, photovoltaic energy conversion,
strained-quantum-well lasers, and chemical modification of semiconductor
surfaces. Currently his main interests are in optoelectronics, high speed
optical communications, high efficiency light-emitting diodes and nano-cavity
lasers, photonic crystals at optical and microwave frequencies, quantum
computing and quantum communication.
Advisory for Monday, Sept. 10
UCLA to Host Business-Government Workshop on Nanotechnology
Issues
WHAT: |
UCLA's California NanoSystems Institute will host a workshop on "Nanotechnology: Opportunity and Challenge for Industry." More than 150 business and academic leaders from Southern California will attend the workshop, which will address nanoscience research being conducted at U.S. universities. It is the first of several to be held in the next 18 months throughout the United States. |
WHO: |
Bruce Mehlman, assistant secretary for technology policy in the U.S. Department of Commerce, will give the opening remarks. |
WHEN: |
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday, Sept. 10. |
WHERE: |
UCLA's James West Alumni Center, 325 Westwood Plaza. |
BACKGROUND: The California NanoSystems Institute, known as CNSI,
is a joint enterprise of UCLA and UC Santa Barbara. CNSI was established
last year to facilitate nanotechnology development in information, biomedical
and manufacturing industries in California. In 2000 Gov. Gray Davis named
CNSI as one of three research efforts statewide to receive $100 million
in state support to help propel the future of the California economy.
The Nanotechnology Workshop is being co-sponsored by the UCLA School
of Public Policy and Social Research in conjunction with the U.S. Department
of Commerce; Federal Aviation Administration; the National Nanotechnology
Coordinating Office, National Science Foundation; and industry partner,
the Los Angeles Regional Technology Alliance. Workshop panel discussions
and break-out sessions will be conducted by leaders of large and small
California technology companies, academic researchers, and Federal and
state policymakers. The UCLA conference will focus on the importance of
nanotechnology to three areas: aerospace, information technology/electronics
and biotechnology issues.
The recommendations of the UCLA workshop and subsequent regional meetings
will be used to inform and guide Federal and state policymakers. Nanotechnology
research is supported largely by a $500 million Federal research commitment,
begun in the previous administration and continued, with increased funding
proposed, by President Bush.
CONTACT: Stan Paul, director of communications, UCLA School of
Public Policy and Social Research, (310) 206-8966.
-UCLA-
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Nanotechnology: Opportunity and Challenge for Industry
Monday, September 10, 2001
University of California, Los Angeles
7:30 a.m.
|
Registration
|
|
8:30 a.m
|
Welcome and Review of Agenda Martha A. Krebs, Director,
California NanoSystems Institute
|
|
|
Welcome
|
Barbara J. Nelson, Dean
UCLA School of Public Policy and
Social Research
|
|
Opening remarks
|
Bruce P. Mehlman, Assistant Secretary
for Technology Policy
U.S. Department of Commerce
|
9:10 a.m.
|
Opening Presentations
|
|
|
Nanoscience and Technology in California
|
Joe Raguso, Deputy Secretary
California Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency's Division of Science,
Technology and Innovation
|
|
The Science of NanoSystems
|
James R. Heath, Scientific Director
California NanoSystems Institute
|
9:40 a.m.
|
Plenary Session
|
Moderator: Martha A. Krebs, CNSI
Brian M. Pierce, Raytheon
Steve Quake, Caltech/Fluidigm
Michael R. Darby, UCLA
Joel Balbien, Smart Tech
Mihail (Mike) C. Roco,
National Science Foundation
|
11:15 a.m.
|
Break
|
|
11:30 a.m.
|
Concurrent Sessions
|
|
|
Large Conference Room
|
Session 1 - Bioscience
Moderator: Martha A. Krebs, UCLA
Michael J. Heller, Nanogen
Scott Broadley, Broadley-James
Scott R. Carter, Caltech
Michael Partsch, Versant Ventures
Mihail (Mike) C. Roco,
National Science Foundation
|
|
Founders' Room
|
Session 2 - Information Technology
Moderator: Michael Krieger, Krieger & Nunziato LLP
Philip Kuekes, Hewlett Packard
Eli Yablonovitch, UCLA
Bruce E. Koel, USC
Arati Prabhakar, U.S. Venture Partners
James S. Murday, NRL
|
|
Presidents' Board Room
|
Session 3 - Aerospace
Moderator: Rohit Shukla, larta
John H. Belk, Boeing
Joe Lichtenhan, Hybrid Plastics
Richmond A. Wolf, Caltech
Joel Balbien, Smart Technology Ventures
Minoo Dastoor, NASA
|
12:30 p.m.
|
Conference Room Patio
|
Lunch
Welcome Remarks
Chancellor Albert Carnesale, UCLA
|
1:45 p.m.
|
Concurrent Sessions
|
|
|
Large Conference Room
|
Session 1 - Bioscience
Moderator: Martha A. Krebs, UCLA
Michael J. Heller, Nanogen
Scott Broadley, Broadley-James
Scott R. Carter, Caltech
Michael Partsch, Versant Ventures
Mihail (Mike) C. Roco,
National Science Foundation
|
|
Founders' Room
|
Session 2 - Information Technology
Moderator: Michael Krieger, Krieger & Nunziato LLP
Philip J. Kuekes, Hewlett Packard
Eli Yablonovitch, UCLA
Bruce E. Koel, USC
Arati Prabhakar, U.S. Venture Partners
James S. Murday, NRL
|
|
Presidents' Board Room
|
Session 3 - Aerospace
Moderator: Rohit Shukla, larta
John H. Belk, Boeing
Joe Lichtenhan, Hybrid Plastics
Richmond A. Wolf, Caltech
Joel Balbien, Smart Technology Ventures
Minoo Dastoor, NASA
|
3:30 p.m.
|
|
Break
|
3:45 p.m.
|
|
Reports and Outcomes
|
4:30 p.m.
|
|
Wrap-up Discussion and Conclusions
|
5:00 p.m.
|
|
Close
|
|