 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING CHARTER 2. WITNESSES Dr. Vicki Colvin is the Executive Director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology and Associate Professor of Chemistry at Rice University. Research underway at the center focuses on nanomaterials' behavior in the environment and the body and considers risk assessment and safety factors. Dr. Langdon Winner is Professor of Political Science in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York where he serves as co-director of the newly founded Center for Cultural Design. He is a political theorist who focuses on social and political issues that surround modern technological change. Ms. Christine Peterson is cofounder and President of Foresight Institute. She focuses on making nanotechnology understandable, and on clarifying the difference between near-term commercial advances and the "Next Industrial Revolution" arriving in the next few decades. Foresight Institute has developed guidelines that include assumptions, principles, and some specific recommendations intended to provide a basis for responsible development of molecular nanotechnology. 3. OVERARCHING QUESTIONS The hearing will address the following overarching questions: 1. What are the concerns about existing and potential applications of nanotechnology? 2. How is it possible to anticipate the consequences of technology development? 3. How can research and debate on societal and ethical concerns be integrated into the research and development process, especially into projects funded by the federal government? 4. BRIEF OVERVIEW · Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and characterizing
matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is one of the most
exciting fields of science today, involving a multitude of science
and engineering disciplines, with widespread applications in electronics,
advanced materials, medicine, and information technology. The promise
of nanotechnology to accelerate technological change has prompted
some to advise caution about pursuing rapid innovation without some
understanding of where it might lead us. 5. BACKGROUND In its recent review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the National Academy of Sciences noted that the social and economic consequences of nanotechnology promise to be diverse, difficult to anticipate, and sometimes disruptive. Some experts suggest that nanotechnology will lead us to the next industrial revolution. According to the Academy review panel: …if the nanotechnology revolution lives up to the hype comparing it to the industrial revolution, it will also transform and perturb labor and the workplace, introduce new worker safety issues, affect the distribution of wealth within and between nations, and change a variety of social institutions, including our medical system and the military. While these kinds of transformations occurred with other technological advances and were managed reasonably well, there are reasons to believe the transformation propagated by a nanotechnology revolution may be particularly challenging. Nanotechnology is likely to affect and transform multiple industries and affect significant numbers of workers and parts of the economy. Technological acceleration, the increasing rate of discovery in some disciplines, most notably biology, and the synergy provided by improvements in information and computing technologies, have the potential to compress the time from discovery to full deployment for nanotechnology, thereby shortening the time society has to adjust to these changes. Speculation about unintended consequences of nanotechnology, some of it informed, but a lot of it wildly uninformed, has already captured the imagination and, to some extent, the fear of the general public. Some technologists, such as those in the nuclear power and genetically modified foods industries, have ignored these kinds of challenges and suffered the consequences. Others, most notably those in the molecular biology community, have attempted to address the issues and to use their understanding to stimulate an informed and objective dialogue about the choices that can be made and the directions taken. The Academy review panel noted that nanotechnology provides a unique opportunity to develop a better understanding of how technical and social systems affect one another. We currently do not have a comprehensive and well-established knowledge base on how social and technical systems affect each other in general, let alone for the specific case of nanotechnology. This state of affairs is a byproduct of not having a chance to examine these interactions until the systems are well established and of simply not investing sufficient resources in these activities. However, nanotechnology is still in its infancy. Thus, a relatively small investment now in examining societal implications has the potential for a big payoff. The Academy review panel further noted that while the National Science Foundation explicitly included societal implications in its solicitations for nanotechnology research during fiscal year (FY) 2001, few proposals were submitted and none was funded. Within the Foundation, none of the FY 2001 nanotechnology research funds were allocated to the Directorate of Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. According to the Academy review panel: [The Directorate of Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBES) is] the most capable and logical directorate to lead these efforts. As a consequence [of not allocating nanotechnology funds to SBES], social science work on societal implications could be funded [at NSF] in one of two ways: (1) it could compete directly for funding with physical science and engineering projects through a solicitation that was primarily targeted at that audience or (2) it could be integrated with a nanotechnology science and engineering center. There are a number of reasons both funding strategies failed to promote a strong response from the social science community. First, given the differences in goals, knowledge bases, and methodologies, it was probably very difficult for social science group and individual proposals to compete with nanotechnology science and engineering proposals submitted to the physical science and engineering directorates. In addition, while NSF nanotechnology proposals were required to include an educational component and/or a component aimed at the development of a skilled workforce or an informed public, studies of societal implications was only one of six optional activities (including international collaboration, shared experimental facilities, systems-level focus, proof-of-concept testbeds, and connection to design and development activities) that individual proposals could include. Not surprisingly, while essentially every proposal included an educational component, and many included familiar practices like testbeds, very few included a social science component. Finally, NSF's review committees and site visit teams [to review center proposals] did not include social scientists. Thus, although NSF appears to have made a good faith effort to include social science proposals in its agency-wide solicitation, its internal funding strategy and the way the solicitation was framed probably undermined its attempts to support work in this area. Since the release of the Academy study, new NSF solicitations (FY03) require proposals for nanotechnology fabrication centers to include a societal implications dimension and NSF's Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences will be involved in proposal review. NSF also supports a science and technology center-the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University-that seeks to foster the development of nanotechnology through an integrated set of research programs that aim to address the scientific, technological, environmental, human resource, commercialization, and societal barriers that hinder the transition from research to useful technology. 6. WITNESS QUESTIONS The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony: Questions for Mr. Ray Kurzweil · How is it possible to anticipate the consequences of technology development? · To what extent and how should the policy makers communicate with the public to facilitate a responsible debate about the adoption of nanotechnology innovations into society? What role should researchers in nanotechnology play? What role should the private sector play? · How can research and debate on societal and ethical concerns be integrated into the research and development process? Questions for Dr. Vicki Colvin · How is it possible to anticipate the consequences of technology development? · To what extent and how should the policy makers communicate with the public to facilitate a responsible debate about the adoption of nanotechnology innovations into society? What role should researchers in nanotechnology play? What role should the private sector play? · How can research and debate on societal and ethical concerns be integrated into the research and development process? · How is the work of the Rice Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology integrated into the programs of the National Nanotechnology Initiative? Questions for Dr. Langdon Winner · What are the current concerns about existing and potential applications of nanotechnology science and engineering? · How can research on the societal and ethical concerns relating to nanotechnology developments be integrated into the research and development process? Questions for Ms. Christine Peterson · What factors will influence the successful adoption of nanotechnology applications into society? What questions should be asked during the research and development phase to encourage responsible integration of nanotechnology innovations into society? · What is the status of the adoption of nanotechnology applications? What policies might facilitate adoption of new technologies? What are the potential roadblocks? For example, will there be a workforce with appropriate technical skills? · What role will the private sector play in the debate on societal and ethical concerns about existing and potential applications of nanotechnology? APPENDIX I APPENDIX II Section-by-Section Analysis of the Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 Sec. 1. Short Title "Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003." Sec. 2. Definitions Defines terms used in the text. Sec. 3. National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program Establishes an interagency R&D program to promote and coordinate Federal nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education, technology transfer, and commercial application activities. The program will provide sustained support for interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D through grants to researchers and through the establishment of interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user facilities. Establishes a research program to identify societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology and requires that such research be integrated into nanotechnology R&D programs insofar as possible. Establishes an interagency committee, chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and composed of representatives of participating Federal agencies, as well as representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, to oversee the planning, management, and coordination of all Federal nanotechnology R&D activities. Requires the Interagency Committee to establish goals and priorities, establish program component areas to implement those goals and priorities, develop a strategic plan to be updated annually, consult widely with stakeholders, and propose a coordinated interagency budget for Federal nanotechnology R&D. Sec. 4. Annual Report Requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy to submit an annual report, at the time of the President's budget request to Congress, describing Federal nanotechnology budgets and activities for the current fiscal year, and what is proposed for the next fiscal year, by agency and by program component area. Requires that the report include an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and priorities established for Federal nanotechnology R&D, and the extent to which the program incorporates the recommendations of the Advisory Committee (established in sec. 5). Sec. 5. Advisory Committee Establishes a Presidentially-appointed advisory committee, consisting of non-Federal experts, to conduct a broad assessment of Federal nanotechnology R&D activities and issue a biennial report. Sec. 6. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office Establishes a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office with full-time staff to provide technical and administrative support to the Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee, to serve as a point of contact for outside groups, and to conduct public outreach. Sec. 7. Authorization of Appropriations Authorizes appropriations for nanotechnology R&D programs at
the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and the Environmental Protection Agency
(see table below). Sec. 8. External Review of the National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a triennial review of Federal nanotechnology R&D programs including technical progress, managerial effectiveness, and adequacy in addressing societal and ethical concerns.
|