A One-to-One with Mike Roco
Courtesy: The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Assorted Publications
How did the idea of a multi-agency NNI emerge?
“Participation of multiple agencies is necessary because of
the large spectrum of relevance of nanotechnology to the society.
In November 1996, I organized a small group of researchers and experts
from government including Stan Williams (Hewlett Packard), Paul
Alivisatos (University of California, Berkeley) and Jim Murday (Naval
Research Laboratory), and we started to do our homework in setting
a vision for nanotechnology. We began with preparing supporting
publications, including a report on research directions in ten areas
of relevance, despite low expectation of additional funding at that
moment. In 1997-1998, we ran a program solicitation “Partnership
in Nanotechnology: Functional Nanostructures” at NSF and we
received feedback from the academic community. Also, we completed
a worldwide study in academe, industry and governments, together
with a group of experts including Richard Siegel (Renssalaer Polytechnic
Institute), then at Argonne National Laboratory) and Evelyn Hu (University
of California, Santa Barbara), and by the end of 1998, we had the
understanding what are the possibilities at the international level.
The visits performed in that time interval were essential in developing
an international acceptance of nanotechnology, and defining its
place among existing disciplines.”
 |
|
“NNI was prepared with the same rigor as a science project
between 1997 and 2000: we developed a long term vision for research
and development (R&D), an international benchmarking of
nanotechnology in academe, government and industry, a plan for
the US government investment, a brochure explaining nanotechnology
for the public, and a report on the societal implication of
nanoscience and nanotechnology. More than 150 experts almost
equally distributed between academe, industry and government
contributed in setting the nanotechnology research directions,
bringing in the dialog experts like Richard Smalley (Rice University),
Herb Goronkin (Motorola) and Meyya Meyyappan (National Aeronautics
and Space Administration [NASA] Ames).” |
“On behalf of the interagency group, on March 11, 1999, in the
historic Indian Hall at the White House’s Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), I proposed the NNI with a budget half
billion dollars in fiscal year 2001. While other topics were on the
agenda of that meeting, nanotechnology captured the imagination of
those present and discussions reverberated for about two hours. It
was the first time that a forum at this level with representatives
from the major Federal R&D departments reached a decision to consider
exploration of nanotechnology as a national priority. In parallel,
over two dozen of other competing topics were under consideration
by OSTP for priority in funding in fiscal year 2001. We had the attention
of Neil Lane, then the Presidential Science Advisor, and Tom Kalil,
then economic assistant to the President.”
“After
that presentation, our focus changed. Because nanotechnology was not
known to Congress or the Administration, establishing a clear definition
of nanotechnology and communicating the vision to large communities
and organizations took the center stage. Indeed, the period from March
1999 through the end of the year was a time of very intense activity.
Few experts gave even a small chance to nanotechnology for special
funding by the White House. Nevertheless, with this proposal and the
“homework” of studies completed, we focused our attention
on the six major Federal department and agencies— the National
Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense (DOD), Department
of Energy (DOE), NASA, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) —that
would place nanotechnology as a top priority during the summer of
1999.”
“Then, the approval process moved to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), Presidential Council of Advisors in
Science and Technology (PCAST) and the Executive Office of the President
(EOP, White House), and had supporting hearings in the House and Senate.”
“In November 1999, the OMB recommended nanotechnology as
the only new R&D initiative for fiscal year 2001. On December
14, 1999, the PCAST highly recommended that the President fund nanotechnology
R&D. Thereafter, it was a quiet month – we had been advised
by the Executive Office of the President to restrain from speaking
to the media about the topic because a White House announcement would
be made. We prepared a draft statement. A video was being produced
for the planned multimedia presentation, but we did not have time
to complete it.”
“President Clinton announced
the NNI at Caltech in January 2000 beginning with words such as “Imagine
what could be done... ”. He used only slides. After that speech,
we moved firmly in preparing the Federal plan for R&D investment,
to identify the key opportunities and convincing potential contributors
to be proactive. A House and then Senate hearings brought the needed
recognition and feedback from Congress.”
“In
August 2000, the White House advanced the Interagency Working Group
on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN) to the level of
Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET)
with the charge of implementing NNI. The National Nanotechnology Coordinating
Office (NNCO) was established as a secretariat office to NSET in January
2001. In the first year, the six agencies of the NNI invested about
$470 million, only few percentage points less than the tentative budget
proposed on March 11, 1999. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NNI has
increased significantly, from 6 to 16 departments and agencies. The
Presidential announcement of NNI with its vision and program partially
motivated or stimulated the international community. About other 40
countries announced have announced priority nanotechnology programs
since the NNI announcement. It was as if nanotechnology had gone through
a phase transition: what had once been perceived as blue sky research
of limited interest (or in the view of several groups, science fiction,
or even pseudoscience), was now being seen as a key technology of
the 21st century. The Bush Administration has increased the support
for NNI with higher Presidential annual “budget requests”
each year.”
“In 2003, after initially passing
the House with a vote of 405-19 (H.R. 766), and then the Senate with
unanimous support (S. 189), the “21st Century Nanotechnology
R&D Act” is heading to be signed by the President Bush.
Through this Bill, Congress recognizes nanotechnology as a key challenge
for the future of US in the 21st century. This Bill will stimulate
not only R&D but also industrial and venture funding, education
and public awareness, and states investments. I see nanotechnology
as a key national “competency” (capability) helping existing
industry to become more efficient and competitive, advancing knowledge
and emerging technologies, and developing unprecedented products and
medical procedures that could not be realized with existing knowledge
and tools. It’s a personal satisfaction to envision the immense
impact that nanotechnology will have on the economy and society. Because
of its far-reaching implications, I see this legislation as having
high societal return on public investment. In the 2003 Senate briefings,
John Marburger, the Director of OSTP, has used nanotechnology as an
example of national R&D endeavor with multiagency collaboration.
Also, the previous Administration identified nanotechnology as an
example for interagency partnership. I recall when Newt Gingrich congratulated
the previous Administration for the NNI during the Societal Implications
workshop held at NSF in September 2000. I trust that the bi-partisan
support will continue because the nanotechnology progress is seen
as “a higher purpose” beyond party affiliation. I have
devoted time for the nanotechnology advancement and NNI beyond my
personal research since 1991. The credible promise that nanotechnology
will change the economy and quality of life, with the recognition
of the NNI from Congress and the President, is the best reward.”
“Besides products, tools and healthcare, nanotechnology
also implies learning, imagination, infrastructure, inventions, public
acceptance, culture, anticipatory laws and architecture of other factors.
In 1997-2000, we developed a vision, and in the first three years,
2001-2003, the vision has become an R&D reality. A main reason
for the development of NNI has been the vision based on intellectual
drive towards exploiting new phenomena and processes, developing a
unified science and engineering platform from the nanoscale, and using
the molecular and nanoscale interactions for efficient manufacturing.
Another main reason has been the promise of broad societal implications,
including $1 trillion per year by 2015 of products where nanotechnology
plays a key role, which would require 2 million workers. These estimations
have been based on direct contacts with leading experts in large companies
with related R&D programs in US, Japan and Europe, and the international
study completed between 1997 and 1999.”
Could
you identify results of the NNI investment?
“There
are major outcomes after the first three years (fiscal years 2001-2003)
of the NNI. The NNI has already created a nanoscale science and engineering
“power house” of discoveries and inventions in the US
with about 40,000 researchers, students and workers qualified at least
in one aspect of nanotechnology. The R&D landscape for nanotechnology
research and education has changed, advancing from questions such
as “what is nanotechnology?” and “could it ever
be developed?” to “how can we take advantage of it faster?”
and “who is the leader?” Also, the international context
changed: the worldwide government investments have increased in excess
of three times in three years, from about $825 million in 2000 (of
which $270 million was in the U.S.) to about $3 billion in 2003 (of
which $770 million was in the U.S.).”
“First,
research is advancing towards systematic control of matter at the
nanoscale faster than envisioned in 2000, when NNI was introduced
with words like “Imagine what could be done 20-30 years from
now.” After three years, in 2003, the NNI supports about 2,500
active awards in about 300 academic organizations and about 200 small
businesses and non-profit organizations in all 50 states. The time
of reaching commercial prototypes has been reduced by at least of
factor of two for key applications such as detection of cancer, molecular
electronics, and special nanocomposites.”
 |
|
“Second, systemic changes are in preparation for education,
by earlier introduction of nanoscience and reversing the “pyramid
of science” with understanding of the unity of nature
at the nanoscale from the beginning. In 2002, NSF announced
the nanotechnology undergraduate education program, and in 2003,
the nanotechnology high school education program. In the next
years, we plan to change the language of science even earlier
and involve science museums to seed that language to K-12 students.
About 7,000 students and teachers have been trained in 2003
with NSF support. All major science and engineering colleges
in US have introduced courses related to nanoscale science and
engineering in the last three years.” |
“Third, significant infrastructure has been established in
over 60 universities with nanotechnology user capabilities. Five
networks (Network for Computational Nanotechnology, National Nanotechnology
Infrastructure Network, Oklahoma Network for Nanotechnology, the
DOE large facilities network, and the NASA nanotechnology academic
centers) have been established.”
“Fourth, industry investment has reached about the same level
of investment as the NNI in long-term R&D, and almost all major
companies in traditional and emerging fields have nanotechnology
groups at least to survey the competition. For example, Intel has
reported $20 billion revenues from nanotechnology in 2003. About
75% of patents (about 6,400 of 8,500) related to nanotechnology
as recorded by the US Patent and Trade Office in 2002 are from US
while the NNI funding is about 25% of the world government investment
(about $0.77B of $3.0B). Despite the general economic downturn,
nanotechnology venture funding in US doubled in 2002 as compared
to 2001, and in US there are more start-up companies than all other
countries combined. The NNI needs to further encourage small businesses.
For example, NSF supported more than 100 small businesses with an
investment of $36 million between 2001 and 2003.”
“Fifth, the NNI’s vision of a “grand coalition”
of academe, government, industry and professional groups is taking
shape. Over 22 regional alliances have been established throughout
US and develop local partnerships, support commercialization and
education. Professional societies have established specialized divisions;
organize workshops and continuing education programs, among them
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American
Chemical Society, American Physics Society, Materials Research Society,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
and American Vacuum Society. The fiscal year 2004 NNI investment
is over three times the corresponding Federal Investment in fiscal
year 2000, and the attention is extending to the legislative and
even judiciary branches of US Government.”
“Sixth, societal implications were addressed from the start
of the NNI, beginning with the first research and education program
on environmental and societal implications, issued by NSF in July
2000. In September 2000, the report on “Societal Implications
of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology” was issued. Today, in 2003,
the number of projects in the area has grown significantly, funded
by NSF, EPA, NIH, DOE and other agencies. Awareness of potential
unexpected consequences of nanotechnology has increased, and Federal
agencies meet periodically to discuss those issues.”
Where do you see the NNI going from here?
“Nanotechnology has the potential to change our comprehension
of nature and life, develop unprecedented manufacturing tools and
medical procedures, and even change societal and international relations.
The first set of nanotechnology grand challenges was established
in 1999-2000, and NSET plans to update it in 2004. Let’s imagine
again what could be done. I envision several potential developments
by 2015:
• Half of the newly designed advanced materials and manufacturing
processes are built using control at the nanoscale. Even if this
control may be rudimentary as compared to the long-term potential
of nanotechnology, this will mark a milestone towards the new industrial
revolution as outlined in 2000. By extending the experience with
information technology in the 1990s, I would estimate an overall
increase of social productivity by at least 1% per year because
of these changes.
• Ahead are several challenges. Visualization and numerical
simulation of three-dimensional domains with nanometer resolution
will be necessary for engineering applications. Silicon transistors
will reach dimensions smaller than 10 nm and will be integrated
with molecular or other kind of nanoscale systems (beyond or integrated
with CMOS). Changing our goals and strategies in this area is the
experimental proof of concept, completed in 2003, which showed that
CMOS can work at the 5 nm gate (and potentially at a smaller scale),
is. One may recall that in 2000, we contemplated the “brick
wall” of physical principle that would limit the advancement
of silicon technology by the end of this decade. Now we are looking
to advances by 2020 and then to integration with bottom-up molecular
assemblies. Nanoscale designed catalysts will expand the use in
“exact” chemical manufacturing to cut and assemble molecular
assemblies, with minimal waste.
• Suffering from chronic illnesses is being sharply reduced.
It’s conceivable that by 2015, our ability to detect and treat
tumors in their first year of occurrence might totally eliminate suffering
and death from cancer. In 2000, we aimed for earlier detection of
cancer within 20-30 years. Today, based on the results obtained during
2001-2003 in understanding the cell and new instrumentation, we are
trying to eliminate cancer as a cause of death if treated in a timely
manner. Pharmaceutical synthesis, processing and delivery will be
enhanced by nanoscale control, and about half of pharmaceuticals will
use nanotechnology in a key component. Modeling the brain based on
neuron-to-neuron interactions will be possible by using advances in
nanoscale measurement and simulation.
• Converging technologies from the nanoscale will establish
a mainstream pattern for applying and integrating nanotechnology with
biology, electronics, medicine, learning and other fields. It includes
hybrid manufacturing, neuromorphic engineering, artificial organs,
expanding life span, enhancing learning and sensorial capacities.
• Life-cycle sustainability and biocompatibility will be pursued
in the development of new products. Knowledge development in nanotechnology
will lead to reliable safety rules for limiting unexpected environmental
and health consequences of nanostructures. Control of contents of
nanoparticles will be performed in air, soils and waters using a national
network.
• Knowledge development and education will originate from the
nanoscale instead of the microscale. Earlier nanoscience education
will change the role of science and motivation for schoolchildren.
A new education paradigm not based on disciplines but on unity of
nature and education-research integration will be tested for K-16
(reversing the pyramid of learning (8)). Science and education paradigm
changes will be at least as fundamental as those during the “microscale
S&E transition” that originated in 1950s where microscale
analysis and scientific analysis were stimulated by the space race
and digital revolution. The new “nanoscale S&E transition”
will change the foundation of analysis and the language of education
stimulated by the nanotechnology products. This new “transition”
originated at the threshold of the third millennium.
• Nanotechnology businesses and organizations will restructure
towards integration with other technologies, distributed production,
continuing education, and forming consortia of complementary activities.
Traditional and emerging technologies will be equally affected.
Moving on to the controversies, how do nanomaterials compare
to existing chemicals and materials in regards to potential dangers?
“A main reason for developing nanotechnology is to extend the
limits of sustainable development. One way is “exact”
manufacturing at the nanoscale with small consumption of energy, water
and materials, as well as minimized waste. Another way is reducing
the effects of existing nanostructured contaminants from traditional
activities such as combustion engines or from natural sources such
as biomineralization and sediment fragmentation. Third is controlling
the evolution of existing and newly released nanostructures in the
environment. The NNI annual investment in nanoscale research with
relevance to environment is estimated at about $50 million in 2002,
of which NSF awards about $30 million and EPA awards about $6 million.
If one would add the research for societal and educational implications,
the investment is about 10% of the total annual NNI budget.”
“All material stuff around us, either natural or man-made, has
a structure at the nanoscale. All living cells interact with nanostructures
when they feed, breed or are touched by viruses. Developing knowledge
at the nanoscale is a natural trend in science and engineering. This
may prepare us to address unexpected risks of human activity such
as encountering unknown viruses and bacteria. Nanotechnology activities
may raise additional challenges because of nanostructures may have
more reactive surfaces and exhibit new functions for the same chemical
composition.
NNI research is developing new knowledge for such issues in more than
120 projects at the end of 2003, including several centers at the
University of California, Davis (nanoparticles in the environment),
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (air pollution), University of Illinois
at Urbana (water purification), Rice University (nanostructures in
the environment), and University of Notre Dame (nanoparticles in soils).”
“Questions researchers are addressing are: what is different
for artificially created nanostructures? And how would those nanostructures
behave differently if released in the environment? Nanotechnology
will develop in the areas where potential advantages would exceed
the impact of potential risks, and where the potential risks are limited
and can be addressed. Current approaches show that nanotechnology
consequences in research or production are best addressed within the
existing system applications such as biology, chemistry or electronics.
Key questions asked by technology users and the public are about economic
development and commercialization, education, infrastructure, environmental,
health, ethical and legal aspects. We have the responsibility to increase
productivity, better use natural resources, reduce poverty and hunger,
improve health care, and enhance human resources as well as to address
health and environmental risks and related efforts to reduce them.
The response must be balanced. Considering the opinions of individual
groups— at times different from the largest majority and sometimes
conflicting with scientific facts— needs to be done in the context
of broader societal goals.”
“The vision of few nanometer intelligent robots mentioned in
science fiction literature (see the novel “Prey” by M.
Crichton) leads to immediate criticism by some groups that are concerned
that such robots would take over the world and damage the environment.
This dialogue is carried out, ignoring input from researchers who
note that basic laws of mass and energy conservation may not lead
to infinitely multiplying material objects, and that only a complex
system of already known living systems may multiply and be intelligent.”
“Our role is to provide R&D support for knowledge development,
identify possible risks for health, environment and human dignity,
and inform the public with a balanced approach about the benefits
and potential unexpected consequences.
The NSF prepared a report on “Societal Implications of Nanoscience
and Nanotechnology” in September 2000 and published it for broader
public distribution in 2001 (Roco and Bainbridge, eds., 2001). The
proceedings were followed by various program solicitations and the
assignment to the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO)
in 2001, of a monitoring role for potential risks. The NNCO also has
the role to communicate with the public and address unexpected consequences.
As a follow-up to that report, NSF has made support for social, ethical,
and economic research studies a priority by (a) including it as a
new theme in the NSF annual program solicitations since 2000; (b)
contributions in the research and education centers; and (c) conducting
a study on the impact of technology and converging technologies from
the nanoscale (Roco and Bainbridge, eds., 2002).”
“NSF has pursued the research and education themes “Nanoscale
processes in the environment” and “Societal and Educational
Implications of Nanotechnology” as part of its NNI programs
since July 2000 (annual program solicitations NSF 00-119, 01-157,
02-148, 03-043; 03-044), and about 100 examples of awards made in
this area are posted on www.nsf.gov/nano (click on Solicitations and
Outcomes). EPA has had annual program announcements in the STAR program
with focus on nanotechnology and environment since 2002; in fiscal
year 2003, 22 awards were made and about 12, in 2004. DOE has included
nanoscience in environmental research performed at several National
Laboratories such as Oak Ridge in Tennessee and Environmental Molecular
Laboratory in Washington State. Additional SBIR/STTR awards were made
at NSF after 1999 when nanotechnology was specifically targeted in
the respective program announcements. EPA will have an SBIR solicitation
on “Nanomaterials and Clean Technology” with a deadline
in May 2004. FDA, EPA and other regulatory agencies are following
very closely the research results.
The NNI annual investment in research and educational with relevance
to environment has increased progressively since 2000. Other programs
dedicated to environmental implications of nanotechnology abroad were
announced in March 2003 by European Community and at in November 2003
by Taiwan, about three years after the NSF first called for proposals
in that area.”
“One should not sidetrack the efforts for sustainable development
by delaying or halting the creation of new knowledge in the field.
At the international “Nanotech 2003 and Future” conference
in Japan on February 26, 2003, during my keynote address, I made an
international appeal to researchers and funding organizations “to
take timely and responsible advantage of the new technology for economic
and sustainable development, to initiate societal implications studies
from the beginning of the nanotechnology programs, and to communicate
effectively the goals and potential risks with research users and
the public” (9). Since then, I’ve had discussions with
representatives from EC, APEC, Switzerland, UK, Taiwan, China, Australia,
and other countries about this topic. International collaboration
is necessary in a field that does not have borders, where the products
are sold internationally, and the health and environmental aspects
are of general interest.
Nanotechnology is still in the precompetitive phase in most areas
of relevance and international collaboration is beneficial. Nanotechnology
has the long-term potential to bring revolutionary changes in society
and harmonize international efforts towards a higher purpose than
just advancing a single field of science and technology, or a single
geographical region. A global strategy guided by broad societal goals
of mutual interest is envisioned.”
How did you get involved with nanotechnology?
“I have been captivated by the unity and coherence encountered
in nature. I believe that a corresponding coherence must be reflected
in the research and education endeavor. In my own academic research
on multiphase systems in the earlier 1980s, during a NSF sponsored
project at the University of Kentucky, I noted that the transition
from single molecules to continuum behavior causes functional changes
that cannot be explained with microscale models, no matter the phase
- solid, liquid, gas or plasma. In a subsequent IBM-sponsored project
on two-phase toner flow, I observed how nanometer-size particles and
thin layers unexpectedly and significantly change properties if their
dimensions or shapes were changed by less than the atomic or molecular
size. For example, a confined nanolayer may transit from superfluid
to quasi-solid behavior if its thickness changes with less than one
molecular diameter. Interactions with numerous researchers, consulting
with a variety of industries, and visiting professorships at Caltech,
Tohoku University, and Delft University revealed to me many other
facets and also the common treads of nanoscience.”
“I came to NSF in 1990 as a program director (although I maintained
my university position until 1995) because I was interested in the
“big picture,” and wanted to promote the coherence of
science and technology–and also because I had several specific
ideas on nanotechnology and academe-industry interaction. In 1990,
I proposed that NSF fund a new emerging technology program on “nanoparticle
synthesis and processing.” This was awarded at about $3 million
in 1991, leading to the first government program with emphasis on
“nano”.”
“In an interview with Business Week in August 1991, I said that
it might take “5-10 years” for the field to be recognized.
One reason was that the nanoscale behavior could not be easily measured,
simulated or controlled. Also, each discipline had its own principles,
and it was not clear at that time that the several phenomena would
dominate nanoscale no matter the field of relevance, or that the weak
molecular interactions could be exploited for efficient manufacturing.
Nonetheless, I kept on taking time for nanotechnology in addition
to my other core duties at NSF—sometimes without any assurance
that I would be able to continue working in that direction. I had
become convinced that the discovery and mastery of this intermediate
length scale, running from the width of a single atom or molecule
to about 100 molecular diameters, would be a historical event in science
and engineering. It’s here that we find the transition between
the discontinuous behavior of atoms and molecules, and the continuous
macroscopic properties of matter that we can detect with our senses.
It’s here that we find the transition between inert chemicals
and life. This is where all the fundamental structures and properties
of matter are defined, and can be changed with small energy consumption
by rearranging the material structure. Here we can use the “weak”
molecular interactions to yield the most efficient manufacturing methods.
This is the domain of confluence of exact science of few atoms on
one side, and technology of assembling them into useful products on
the other side. This is the lowest scale where we can transform matter
under control for practical purposes.” |
