Foresight Update 16
page 4
A publication of the Foresight Institute
 Funding
Nanotechnology Ourselves
Jim Bennett is a member of the Board of Directors of both
IMM and the Foresight Institute. He is also president of the
Center for Constitutional Issues in Technology, which studies
policy issues arising from anticipated developments such as
nanotechnology. He is writing a book on space development --
including how nanotechnology can speed the current slow rate of
progress -- to be published by MIT Press in late 1994. Here he
explains how to speed research in nanotechnology:
Nanotechnology supporters often ask me how they can speed
development work in this new field. For those of us who aren't
able to work directly on nanotechnology research, or who are too
far from the center of activity generated by Foresight and its
affiliates in Palo Alto, it can be hard to see how to make a real
difference in the rate of progress.
Right now, progress is limited by funding. How can we increase
the level of funding going into nanotechnology work?
Government agencies make their research grants based on existing
categories, which don't yet include the new and highly
interdisciplinary field of molecular nanotechnology. Even if they
did, these grants are made based on peer review, not on requests
made by the general public. So at this stage, external pressure
on agencies for increasing government spending is not an
effective strategy, even for those who believe that research
funding should be primarily funded by government.
Research by private companies is similarly hard to influence.
Unless you actually work there -- preferably at a high level --
convincing a company to invest in research leading toward
nanotechnology is extremely difficult. Moreover, most companies
outside Japan have time horizons which are too short to consider
the payoffs from nanotechnology in their research investment
decisions.
Here in Silicon Valley, one common response to a situation like
this is to start a new company, one purposely set up to pursue a
particular goal. Unfortunately, the time horizon problem shows up
again: venture capitalists and other investors want to see quick
profits, usually in three to five years. Further, those who wish
to invest in US startups can do so only at very high levels --
over $100,000 -- owing to regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The remaining option is funding from individuals and foundations.
Fortunately, these sources can make a major difference to
nanotechnology research at this early stage. When the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing
(IMM) was founded to do nanotechnology research, it was set up to
receive contribution from individuals -- because we knew that
informed individuals would make the biggest funding impact in the
early days of the field. We will tap additional funding sources
for IMM as it grows, but for now, individual donors are making
the biggest difference to IMM's research.
IMM Senior Associates
If you have been a Foresight member since last December, you
received a description of IMM's new program for those who want to
make a real difference in the speed of research: the IMM Senior
Associates program. These are a self-selected group of members
committed to furthering nanotechnology research themselves,
directly, by making a five-year pledge of funds. Three levels of
participation are available, depending on a member's ability:
$1000, $500, or $250 annually.
It is the Senior Associate program that enables IMM do its
research, including work by Eric Drexler and Markus Krummenacker.
Developing nanotechnology is a multi-year task: the Senior
Associates provide a solid base of ongoing, multi-year support,
enabling IMM to build its research program. We do receive
occasional larger donations from those who are very well-off, but
the timing of these one-time donations is unpredictable. To keep
IMM researchers steadily working on nanotechnology, we need a
predictable base of support from members who aren't
philanthropists, but who can make a commitment to an annual
donation of substance. In a very real sense, the IMM Senior
Associates are IMM.
Benefits to Senior Associates
In recognition of their high level of commitment to IMM and
its researchers, Senior Associates participate more closely in
the workings of the Institute. As a Senior Associate, you are
kept up-to-date with our series of quarterly letters, written
specifically for members of this program by IMM research fellow
Eric Drexler. These have the latest news, opinions, and details
which can't be fit into the limited pages of publications like Foresight
Update.
We've found that our Senior Associates want to meet each other,
to discuss their interests in nanotechnology and their goals for
IMM. Accordingly, we have an annual social gathering held in
conjunction with Foresight's nanotechnology conference. Senior
Associates who can't attend the event in a given year are
encouraged to send a written statement or message for the group.
At the higher levels of giving, new members receive gifts which
Senior Associates have said mean a lot to them, as visible
symbols of their participation in nanotechnology research. At the
$500 level, members receive the book of their choice -- Nanosystems,
Unbounding the Future, or Engines of Creation
-- signed by IMM research fellow Eric Drexler. At the $1000
level, members receive a framed color graphic of a nanodevice,
signed by designers Eric Drexler and IMM advisor Ralph Merkle. (A
note to current Senior Associates: the gift program has just been
established. To smooth out the expense of sending the gifts to
existing higher-level members, we'll mail yours at the first
anniversary of your pledge.)
Who are the Senior Associates?
It's a stretch for many of our Senior Associates to join the
program. Why do they do it? In talking with them, we find that
they join because they have a profound understanding of the
potential of nanotechnology to make a difference to the goals
they care about. Those goals range from improved health care and
a cleaner environment to a better quality of life for their
children and for people everywhere. Many plan to benefit
personally from the nanotechnology revolution, perhaps by
participating in space development or having a longer and
healthier lifespan. They want to make nanotechnology happen,
personally.
There is so much more IMM could be doing. Right now, we are
constrained by the level of steady, predictable funding we can
count on over the next few years. This shortage of funds delays
research and experimentation. We need more researchers and
equipment. Soon, we need to expand our modeling work into the
testing lab. The Senior Associates can make this happen. To avoid
delays and interruptions, we need to expand participation -- we
need you to help build this effort. Giving to IMM is the best way
to speed nanotechnology.
I invite you to join with us in making a difference to
nanotechnology research.
To become an IMM Senior Associate, call IMM at
415-917-1121. For
more information on the Senior Associates program of
Foresight and IMM
Policy
Watch
Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) is
about to move to more basic research. MITI announced that it will
launch a new program of research into areas of materials science,
optics, and biology that are still far from commercialization. In
support of the new venture, called the Leading Research Scheme,
MITI plans to spend a total of some 300 million yen (around $2.4
million US) per year and undertake some internal reorganization.
The work will be performed mainly by institutes of MITI's Agency of Industrial Science and
Technology (AIST), in cooperation with universities and the
private sector. By uniting basic scientists from universities
with research from industry and from the MITI institutes, the
ministry hopes to create research consortia with a stronger
academic and interdisciplinary flavor than in the past.
MITI has chosen the following six research areas for its foray
into basic science: (1) integrated inorganic materials, working
to control the architecture of materials from the molecular level
on up; (2) autonomous reaction materials, complex molecules that
change their shape in response to light, temperature, heat, or
chemical stimuli; (3) exploiting tropical organisms that may
harbor many new drugs or other useful compounds; (4) biological
evolution engineering to produce new biomolecules with abilities
not found in nature; (5) femtosecond technology to pursue lasers
and sensors that can operate in femtosecond time frames; and (6)
ecofactory technology to design products and their factories to
minimize pollution, waste, and energy use to develop "clean
technologies" from the ground up. [Science, 258:1727]
President Clinton's White House recently released A Vision
of Change for America, a document that spells out new
directions in US policy regarding science and technology. Clinton
has signaled that he considers science and technology -- with the
clear emphasis on technology -- key to the nation's growth. More
than 10% of the proposed $100 billion increase in spending over
the next four years is for science and technology programs.
Moreover, Vice President Gore has central interests in
technology, especially "strategic research," aimed at
critical technologies and national needs such as advanced
materials, manufacturing, biotechnology, high-performance
computing, and many applications of industry/government research
at DOE nondefense labs. Also, the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) is to be the centerpiece of NIST's civilian technology
efforts over the next four years, especially for "high-risk,
precompetitive, generic technologies" such as thick film
superconducting and blood purification methods.
The Administration's broad brush paints a picture of technology
transfer and joint industry-government research. Among key
projects to receive emphasis are the National Information
Infrastructure (the "data superhighway"), AIDS and
disease prevention, interagency research including science
education, biotechnology, and specific NSF programs including the
Advanced Neutron Source at Oak Ridge and the Tokamak Physics
Experiment at Princeton.
The Clinton program also scales back some other research and
application areas, notably the Space Station, nuclear reactor
research, DOE defense labs, and the Superconducting
Supercollider. Furthermore, one significant aspect of the plan is
to cap the overhead and indirect costs of all Federal grants for
university research grants at 22%.
In essence, defense research will shrink as civilian technology
programs expand. Overall, the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee calculates that "if all these
investments were in fact funded, they would probably come close
to restoring a 50:50 civil/military R&D ratio by FY
1997." The ratio currently stands at about 58:42 in favor of
the military. [Science, 259:1244-1245]
Although NSF's total research allocation this year is actually
less than last year, it will spend nearly $100 million more in
four strategic areas than it did in 1992. The agency will spend
$17 million more on manufacturing research and education, $28
million more on advanced materials and processing, $17 million
more on biotechnology, and $25 million more on high-performance
computing and communications. NSF will also channel a $5 million
congressionally-mandated increase in the Small Business
Innovation Research in the four areas.
These same strategic research areas are the subject of
government-wide "crosscut" initiatives under the
umbrella of the Federal Coordinating Council on Science,
Engineering, and Technology. As such, NSF had marked them for
increases but at the expense of other programs related to basic
research, which has led to an outcry, especially from physicists
and astronomers. [Science, 259:21]
Earlier this year, John Gibbons was sworn in as director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
following unanimous approval by the US Senate. In efforts to
refocus science and technology policy in light of severe budget
deficits and the end of the Cold War, Gibbons suggested that the
$8.5 billion SSC and the $30 billion Space Station would receive
much closer scrutiny. In particular, the failure to obtain
significant contribution to the SSC from other countries can no
longer be ignored, he said. Moreover, he pointed out that the
Space Station includes certain technologies "that should be
international from the outset." He expects to put greater
emphasis on environmental issues. Gibbons believes that
interagency committees for science and technology are a good
idea, but more can be done with them than in the past.
Importantly, in his position as OSTP director, he sits as a
member of the newly created National Economic Council. [Nature,
361:385]
Budget increases for NIST are hoped to lead to greater investment
in civilian high tech. Even though its $68 million budget hardly
qualifies it as a civilian DARPA, ATP already is earning
accolades for its beneficiaries. ATP expects to fund about 40
projects in 1993, in such research realms as neural networks,
thermal insulators, and plastic recycling methods. [Science,
259:19]
New federal budgets are having a significant impact on the
National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of
Health. The NSF is receiving one of the largest one-year
increases in its history -- $446 million, a 16% increase over
this year's congressional appropriation. NSF intends to increase
the number of grants it awards next year by 1200 to a total of
22,300, but the first priority is to increase the size of grants
awarded.
A $44 million increase would boost NSF's High-Performance
Computing and Communications program to $305 million, to continue
work on what is intended to lead to Vice President Al Gore's plan
to create a national data superhighway. NSF's budget request
lists $6.5 million for new environmental research, including $1
million to start the National Center for Ecological Synthesis and
Analysis. Other significant increases are in biological sciences,
geosciences, mathematical and physical sciences, and social,
behavioral and economic sciences.
However, this is not joyous news to all. The NIH, in contrast, is
slated to receive only a 3.3% cost of living increase, and the
bulk of the additional money is earmarked for AIDS, breast
cancer, and research on the health problems of women and
minorities. Most of NIH's other programs, including nine of 16
institutes, would be cut -- even before inflation is taken into
account. NIH program winners are in areas of cancer, allergy and
infectious diseases, and child health and development. The Center
for Human Genome Research also received significant increases.
Losers included heart, lung and blood programs, alcohol and
alcohol abuse, and aging. [Science, 260:24-25]
The big three US weapons laboratories -- Los Alamos, Livermore,
and Sandia -- could face dramatic changes in the way they do
business if a proposal made by Representative George Brown (D-CA)
is enacted. As chairman of the House Science Committee, the bill
he introduced would "consolidate" nuclear weapons
R&D from several labs (unspecified), shift the focus of the
labs' work more toward civilian projects, and involve the White
House more in managing their research agenda. The bill would also
create an undersecretary for science and technology at the
Department of Energy. [Science, 260:25]
Along with a new strategy for US federal R&D comes a refocus
of the defense industry on nonmilitary needs: target federal
civilian research at specific commercial goals, lure industry
into high-risk experiments, and do it all in a hurry. Recently,
DARPA dropped the "D" of Defense to become ARPA -- the
Advanced Research Projects Agency. This move was in line with a
1992 Carnegie Commission report encouraging this change of name
and focus. The current emphasis in ARPA for military applications
is toward "dual-use" technologies of value both in
weapons and commercial products. ARPA will continue to lead a
government-wide initiative in supercomputers and will also take a
role in expanding the data superhighways. Recently Congress,
under the Clinton Administration, boosted ARPA's 1993 budget from
the Bush Administration's request of $1.3 billion to $2.2
billion, two-thirds for "dual-use" technology
development. As DARPA, the agency's goal may have been to support
companies working on promising technology, but in pursuing that
goal, it became a pivotal market force. In essence, DARPA offered
government buyers a detour around cumbersome federal procurement
rules that required would-be buyers to describe precisely what
they want and then seek competitive bids, a process that can take
a year or more.
The Department of Labor, the NASA, and the Pentagon will be
involved in joint projects aimed at retraining defense industry
employees and devising new educational programs for displaced
workers who don't have access to college classes. The plan also
promises support for "smart highways," magnetic
levitation trains, civil aircraft research, and energy
improvements in federal building and public housing. The
Department of Energy's national laboratories will be asked to set
aside at least 10-20% of their budgets to R&D partnerships
with industry. A new "clean car" task force led by
Gibbons will encourage the development of prototype vehicles that
meet extra-tough antipollution standards. Other broad legal and
economic changes have been proposed to foster civilian
technology, such as converting the research and experimentation
tax credit to a permanent subsidy, relaxing antitrust laws, and
changing the federal advisory committee rules to make it easier
for businessmen to advise the government.
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) in the Commerce Department
now focuses on funding high tech startups. Probably no other
program will grow as fast as ATP, slated for an amazing 1000%
increase over the next four years. A recent study conducted by
Solomon Associates concluded that the grants gave companies a 1-
to 5-year time savings on accomplishing their research.
Commerce Secretary Brown says the department will establish over
100 educational centers modeled on the agricultural extension
service. Their mission will be to keep small companies attuned to
the latest manufacturing techniques and train employees in their
use -- essentially serving as low-cost management consultants.
Commerce will also host the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) to run the next phase of a
program to build "information superhighways." [Science,
259:1816-1819, 260:20-22]
The first real test of the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems
(IMS) project, an international effort initiated by Japan to
develop the automated factories of the future, got under way last
month following years of negotiations between government and
industry officials in Japan, the US, Europe, Canada, and
Australia. Some 140 industrial partners in companies,
universities, and research institutes will participate over the
next year in six pilot projects to test the feasibility of
international collaboration in the research and development of
new manufacturing systems.
The IMS test projects are decentralized, with each of the six
participating regions organizing their own research consortia and
finding mechanisms. The six major test cases are: (1) clean
manufacturing in the process industry, (2) global concurrent
engineering, (3) enterprise integration for global manufacturing,
(4) holonic control systems, (5) rapid product development, and
(6) knowledge systematization.
Apart from the international aspects of the IMS project, a
substantial domestic effort is already under way in Japan. Since
1990, about 65 leading Japanese companies from the electronics,
shipbuilding, car manufacture, steeel, construction, and
robot-manufacturing industries have spend nearly ¥800 million
(about $7 million US) annually to fund a domestic IMS feasibility
study. The core companies and academic research organization
initiated 21 feasibility study projects in 1991-1992. These
projects and the mix of participants were radically revised for a
second phase of 24 projects in 1992-1993. [Nature, 362:97]
Japan and the US signed a joint research agreement at the end of
1992 on optoelectronics, a key component of the 10-year, $500
million Real World Computing program that Japan launched last
July.
The purpose of the agreement, according to NIST, is to stimulate
R&D activity in optoelectronics -- computing technology that
relies on light waves as well as electrons to transmit
information. The project will provide designers with access to
leading-edge fabrication facilities and encourage
commercialization of optoelectronic components based on
"novel and experimental designs."
It is a move that may herald well for nanotechnology because both
nations envision the new accord as a model for US-Japanese
cooperative research, in which they will share knowledge without
spilling any secrets. The US government will participate through
granting agencies such as NIST, NSF and ARPA, enabling US
researchers to get their experimental designs fabricated (likely
by Japanese companies). [Science, 259:599]
Communcations scientist Dr.
Jamie Dinkelacker serves on Foresight's Board of
Advisors.
From Foresight Update16,
originally published 1 July 1993.
|