Workshop Assesses U.S. Regional, State and Local Initiatives for Nanotechnology R&D and Commercialization

by Barton Reppert

Partnerships, cooperation and sharing lessons learned were explored during a two-day government-industry workshop bringing together dozens of representatives from regional, state and local initiatives across the United States that aim to help promote and support the development of nanotechnology.

Co-sponsored by the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and the NanoBusiness Alliance, the meeting was held on 3-4 November at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place in Chicago, in conjunction with the NanoCommerce and SEMI NanoForum conference and exhibition.

For two days, participants were treated to talks, panel discussions and brief presentations with more than 25 speakers, including representatives of 17 different nanotechnology initiatives involving large states such as New York and Texas, as well as smaller, resource-constrained states such as Oklahoma and South Dakota. Regional efforts included the Chesapeake Nanotechnology Initiative, launched earlier this year by Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia; along with local initiatives, including the Chicago Micro and Nanotechnology Community, and the Cleveland Nano Network.

Workshop Fosters a Sense of Community

When asked about what he thought was the most important outcome of the workshop, Sean Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, a policy and advocacy organization for the emerging nanotechnology industry, said, "What’s most significant was that we pulled together the set of folks who are on the frontlines trying to support entrepreneurs across the country in commercializing nanotech innovations.

"We developed knowledge of what others are doing, so that we can learn and leverage from one another, and built a sense of community, of trust, so that we can collaborate effectively going forward.”

Murdock added that in the absence of those personal relationships, and the trust between them, nanotechnology-based economic development might lead down the path that a lot of biotech and other economic development has gone — competing to relocate businesses, and redistributing value, rather than helping to build the capacity and capability that will make the U.S. nanotechnology enterprise more successful on the international stage.

The various initiatives showcased at the Chicago workshop and the predominantly upbeat tone of the meeting reflected rapid growth of nanotechnology efforts — involving research, development and commercialization — in nearly all areas of the United States. The meeting also underscored the increasing importance of nanotechnology for IEEE-USA — and for U.S. IEEE members seeking substantially new or expanded career opportunities.

“Nanotechnology is the most exciting thing that has emerged from the science and technology arena,” said Clifford Lau, 2004 president of the IEEE Nanotechnology Council and chair of IEEE-USA's Research and Development Policy Committee. “Altogether, it is a win-win situation where federal, regional, state and local nanotechnology initiatives come together to ensure our [global] competitiveness in nanotechnology and ensure our economic vitality.”

A research staff member at the Institute for Defense Analyses, in Alexandria, Va., Lau serves as a member of the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET), which oversees the federal government’s multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Central coordination and administration of the NNI are handled by the NNCO.

New York Thinks Big for Nanotech

LaMar Hill, former director of business development for Albany NanoTech and currently principal of NY Nanotech LLC, a consulting firm, described New York State’s efforts to spur nanotechnology research and development (R&D) and commercialization, as well as to reinvigorate related sectors of its high-tech industrial base. Hill's presentation was entitled “Creating a Nanopolis — Enabling a Region for Tech-Driven Growth.”

Albany NanoTech is based at the University at Albany (State University of New York), co-located there with the new College of NanoScale Science and Engineering. It seeks to leverage resources in partnership with business, government and academia to create economic growth for nanoelectronics-related industries. As part of this effort, the state and its industrial partners have committed more than $1.4 billion to establish five Centers of Excellence in nanoelectronics, photonics, bioinformatics, information technology and environmental systems.

Hill explained that New York State’s strategy for promoting nanotechnology development has embraced taking advantage of other key R&D assets, including those of IBM, General Electric Global Research, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the New York State Department of Health’s world-class laboratories.

“We also recognized that we needed to get the State of New York to be willing to invest, to realize and to support these R&D initiatives. And the State of New York has stepped up to the plate, and has made a commitment of spending up to almost a billion dollars a year to support these collaborative R&D initiatives between the universities and the private sector. At the University at Albany alone, the state has provided $600 million in cash to support that activity,” Hill said.

To help pave the way for rapid development and construction of new facilities for high-tech ventures, Hill said that state officials have "identified about a dozen technology parks in the region that are pre-permitted, that can issue building permits in a very short time frame. You can put a shovel in the ground in as little as 30 days,” he said.

Hill declared that while New York’s effort to redevelop the Albany region and “Tech Valley” will take years and continued support to succeed fully, it has already yielded significant benefits. “As a region, we certainly have become an R&D Mecca for some of these industries … There are more than 150 companies that use the University at Albany and RPI to do collaborative research. But we really want to be a Nanopolis. We want to create 50,000 jobs. And that is still under way.”

Hill reminds us that “you have to have patience when you’re in this game."

"It took 20 or 30 years for our manufacturing sector to get to where it was eight years ago. It’s going to take 15 or 20 years to transform our manufacturing sector back to leading-edge, high value-added industry. So it’s not something that happens overnight,” he said.

Regional Challenges and Lessons Learned

A panel discussion on challenges and lessons learned from state and local initiatives included comments from representatives of the Cleveland Nano Network, the Minnesota Nanotech Initiative, the Oklahoma Nanotech Initiative, the Michigan Small Tech Association and the Texas Nanotech Initiative.

Started in 2002, the Texas initiative is a state-wide industry trade group focused on bringing nanotechnology companies, researchers and funding together to create an environment conducive to the rapid commercialization of nanotechnology. Last spring, the state legislature created the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, which provides $200 million in state money over a two-year period for nanotech endeavors. The program will work through partnerships between the state, academia and private industry.

Among initiatives undertaken by smaller states, South Dakota is launching the Center for Advanced Applications at the Nanoscale, with activities at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, in Rapid City, and also at South Dakota State University, in Brookings. The center is expected to focus on R&D involving nanoparticles and nanosensors.

On 31 May, Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Virginia Governor Mark R. Warner, and District of Columbia Mayor Anthony A. Williams agreed to join forces to launch the Chesapeake Nanotech Initiative (CNI). The Chesapeake region boasts a variety of sizeable academic institutions active in nanotechnology R&D, along with several major federal laboratories, both civilian and military, and successful nanotechnology companies, including CytImmune, Creatv Microtech, Luna Technologies, NanoSonic, SAIC, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Materials Modification, Millenium Chemical, Protiveris, Reactive NanoTechnologies, 4Wave and Neoworks.

Sustained Support Critical to Nanotech Success

Lau told Today’s Engineer that "regional, state and local nanotechnology initiatives are extremely important to augment and support the continued development of nanotechnology that has been launched by the U.S. federal government through the NNI.”

“Regional, state and local initiatives can complement the federal basic research programs to commercialize nanotechnology, train nanotechnology workers, and create nanotechnology jobs through state-sponsored activities at local universities, community colleges, job training sites, centers, incubators, science parks and other activities. However, these regional, state and local initiatives must maintain stable support over a period of time. It cannot be a one-time kind of thing, or we will lose the momentum that has been built up to exploit the potentials of nanotechnology,” Lau continued.

In November 2003, IEEE-USA's Board of Directors approved a position statement, prepared by IEEE-USA's R&D Policy Committee, declaring that “IEEE-USA strongly supports government policies that promote nanotechnology research and development and provide related support for commercialization and workforce education.”

In Many Places, Infrastructure Already in Place for Nanotech R&D

Several federal government officials spoke at the workshop, the most senior of whom was Celia Merzbacher, acting assistant director for technology R&D at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and NSET co-chair.

Merzbacher presented summary data on the NNI, which has invested more than $4 billion in federal funding since it was launched five years ago. She noted that the NNI currently helps support about 2,500 active research projects in all 50 states. “There’s an enormous infrastructure that’s been established, and that’s really going to be a legacy of the NNI, going forward. It’s an important aspect as you go about your development work in your areas,” Merzbacher told regional, state and local initiative representatives.

She cited findings of a study released in January 2005 by Lux Research Inc., a New York-based research and advisory firm focusing on the business and economic impact of nano and related emerging technologies, that U.S. states pumped more than $400 million into nanotechnology research, facilities and business incubation programs in 2004 — providing about 40 cents for every dollar invested by the federal NNI.

“The federal government recognizes that there’s a lot going on at the state level, and it’s important that there be a good dialogue,” Merzbacher said.

Workshop Exceeds Expectations

Initial results of the 3-4 November workshop were discussed during an NSET meeting held on 7 November. Afterward, John Sargent, a senior policy analyst with the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration, and an NSET member, said he was “extremely satisfied” with the Chicago meeting. “I think the conference met our expectations and actually exceeded them — in terms of both the attendance and the quality of the attendance, in terms of the exchange of ideas and the feedback we’ve gotten from the conference participants.”

According to Sargent, participants indicated that they felt the workshop was “first of all, and probably foremost, a great networking opportunity to meet their peers and build relationships that, I think, will pay dividends for years to come — but also a chance to hear what’s going on at the federal level, and for them to reflect what their challenges are and how the federal government might help respond to them.”

Philip Lippel, an NNCO policy analyst, said he was pleased with the turnout "in the sense that we had representatives from wide geographic locations, a good variety of different types of programs, different sizes and scales."

"That gives us, our office, feedback as to what’s going on, " he continued. "But I think a very important aspect of this meeting was supposed to be to give them a chance to learn from one another and talk to one another, continue to explore what their common interests, problems and opportunities are. We certainly saw some good signs of that.”

Lippel said he expects an official, detailed report on proceedings of the 3-4 November workshop, as well as findings and recommendations emerging from it, in about six to nine months.

Another two-day meeting on regional, state and local nanotechnoloty initiatives was held on 30 September and 1 October 2003 at the Commerce Department in Washington, D.C. When asked how much progress there has been since the last workshop, Lippel said: “There have certainly been significant steps forward, in the sense that some of the initiatives that were new then are well established now, have come along, and that we have new ones. What we’re seeing is more and more states getting interested in the question of how to develop nanotechnology locally. The states that were in early are still there. They have their initiatives that have developed nicely. And we’re seeing more states try to join the game and find their own niche — and that’s great.”

Useful Links

IEEE-USA position statement (adopted 13 November 2003) on nanotechnology research and development:
www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/nanotechnology.html

Agenda for Chicago workshop 3-4 November 2005:
www.nano.gov/html/meetings/srw2005/

Official report on previous National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop on Regional, State and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology, held in Washington on 30 September and 1 October 2003:
www.nano.gov/041805Initiatives.pdf

National Nanotechnology Coordination Office:
www.nano.gov

NanoBusiness Alliance (member registration required for access):
http://nanobusiness.org

NanoCommerce & SEMI NanoForum:
www.NanoCommerceForum.com

Lux Research Inc.
www.luxresearchinc.com

Albany NanoTech:
www.albanynanotech.org

Cleveland Nano Network:
http://nano-network.org

Minnesota Nanotechnology Initiative:
http://thor.ece.umn.edu/mni/

Oklahoma Nanotech Initiative:
www.oknano.com

Michigan Small Tech Association:
www.michigansmalltech.com

Texas Nanotech Initiative:
www.texasnano.org

South Dakota Center for Accelerated Applications at the Nanoscale:
www.hpcnet.org/caan

Chesapeake Nanotech Initiative:
www.chesapeakenanotech.org

Barton Reppert is a freelance science and technology writer specializing in S&T policy coverage. He previously worked for 18 years as a reporter and editor with The Associated Press in Washington, New York and Moscow. He can be contacted at barton.reppert@verizon.net.