FC: Rep. Sherwood Boehlert pledges nanotech pork on New York trip

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

   March 8, 2002          
   Press Contacts:
   Heidi Mohlman Tringe (Heidi.Tringe () mail house gov)
   Jeff Donald (Jeffrey.Donald () mail house gov)
   (202) 225-4275
   
                       CHAIRMAN BOEHLERT'S SPEECH TO 
   
                    BROOKHAVEN NANOTECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
   
   WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
   (R-NY) delivered the following speech today at the Brookhaven
   Nanotechnology Conference:
   
   "It's a pleasure to be here this morning because it's a chance to talk
   about two of my favorite responsibilities - fighting for science and
   fighting for New York.
   
   "To 'cut to the chase,' my dual - and I think complementary --
   commitments to science and to New York mean that I will do everything
   in my power to ensure that nanotechnology research gets the funding it
   deserves - not just in the Department of Energy but throughout the
   federal government.
   
   "And my commitments also mean that I will do everything possible to
   see that a significant portion of that research takes place right here
   in New York State - not just because that's good for New York,
   although that would be reason enough, especially after the events of
   last September - but because New York has the talent, the
   infrastructure, and the commitment at its top-flight universities and
   federal laboratories to carry out a demanding research agenda.
   
   "Now, I must admit, that despite my dedication to these goals, I was a
   little hesitant about your invitation, at first.  No Congressman wants
   to hear that he's been asked to speak about the smallest topic
   imaginable.  We're not exactly a "small is beautiful" kind of crowd in
   Congress.  But, of course, what I've come to understand is that in
   science and technology, few things could actually be bigger than
   nanotechnology - in terms of its potential to revolutionize scientific
   and engineering research, improve human health and bolster our
   economy.
   
   "Indeed, nanotechnology is a mind-boggling advance - to an extent that
   might no longer be apparent to those of you who work in that field on
   a routine basis.  Manipulating individual atoms - this sounds like the
   stuff of science fiction to a layperson.  And it's even more
   remarkable when I think of how little scientists knew about the
   structure of the atom when I was going through school - not to
   mention, how little I knew about the structure of the atom, but that
   was a different problem.
   
   "Perhaps equally remarkable is that the notion of nanotechnology and
   its potential impact have caught on with the public and their
   representatives in Congress.  This is no mean achievement;
   manipulating atoms is easier than manipulating public attitudes.  And
   I don't really know how the public profile of nanotechnology was
   achieved.  But it is a term that -- even though few may actually
   understand what it encompasses - it's a term that one can utter in
   Washington and receive nods of approval.
   
   "That obviously has practical consequences that will benefit all of
   you.  There is broad, bipartisan support in Washington these days for
   investing in scientific research, and broad agreement that
   nanotechnology is a priority field.  This is reflected in the
   President's budget, which names nanotechnology as one of just four
   national, interagency R&D priorities - the others being anti-terrorism
   research, information technology and global climate change -
   high-profile, essential areas of research, not exactly bad company to
   keep.
   
   "The even better news is that the importance of nanotechnology is not
   just recognized in principle; it's matched by funding proposals.
   
   "The President proposes increasing nanotechnology research spending
   across all the federal agencies by 17 percent, including a 53 percent
   increase in the Department of Energy - that's in a federal budget in
   which proposed domestic spending as a whole barely keeps up with
   inflation.  That's quite a show of support.
   
   "But, of course, I wouldn't start popping champagne corks just yet.
   The release of the President's budget is just the beginning of the
   federal spending process, and that process will continue through the
   summer and into the fall.  Support for science in Congress is broad,
   as I said, but it isn't always deep.  While virtually no one opposes
   science spending in principle, it can get sacrificed to pay for other
   priorities, and, frankly, that can be especially true when it comes to
   the Department of Energy (DOE).
   
   "While DOE's Office of Science has a budget of about the same scale as
   the National Science Foundation (NSF), it isn't nearly as well known
   or as broadly supported.  There are many reasons for that, including
   skepticism about DOE as an entity and some problems with the
   particular spending bill that funds DOE.
   
   "But regardless of the cause, what it means is that all of you need to
   do a better job of telling people in my position just how much is at
   stake in funding you.  And that message has to go out to more than the
   usual suspects - people like me or folks who represent districts that
   have national labs.  You need to talk to Members of Congress and
   Senators who have no reason to be worried about DOE as a matter of
   course.
   
   "And you have a great story to tell, especially about nanotechnology.
   A field like nanotechnology that is brimming with both intellectual
   excitement and practical, economic potential is exactly the kind of
   field that Congress likes to support.  Similarly, research centers
   that bring together university and industry researchers; that marry
   public and private funding and researchers to conduct basic research
   that has broad applicability - that's exactly what we're looking for.
   But we're not going to find out about it unless people like you let us
   know.
   
   "It's especially important to educate people about nanotechnology now,
   at a time when industry does not invest in the same kind of long-term
   research it did when the United States had more of a monopoly on
   scientific breakthroughs.  I don't need to tell you that we cannot
   rely exclusively today - if we ever could - on the Bell Labs of the
   world to develop the transistors of tomorrow.  More than ever
   breakthroughs of that magnitude require public support.
   
   "And talking about nanotechnology can also help us begin to address a
   larger - and I fear, growing problem in the federal budget, one that
   you're all probably painfully familiar with - the disproportionate
   share of federal R&D funding that goes to health research.  Let me
   tell you exactly what I said at our Committee's hearing last month on
   the proposed R&D budget for next year.  And I should say that our lead
   witness at that hearing was Brookhaven's former director, Jack
   Marburger, who is a wonderful guy and is now, as you know, doing a
   terrific job as the President's Science Advisor.
   
   "I said, 'I have long supported, and continue to support the doubling
   of the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  But the NIH
   alone cannot undergird our economic health or even improve human
   health.  Yet the NIH budget is now larger than that of the rest of the
   civilian science agencies put together, and just the increase in the
   NIH budget is larger than the research budget of NSF.'
   
   "So we have to redress that imbalance.  It's fine - indeed necessary
   -- to pick priority areas and fund them more than others, but we're
   getting close to the point that we're funding health to the exclusion
   of other areas.  And there's one especially critical reason for that:
   health researchers have done a great job of explaining what's at stake
   for us, individually and collectively, in their research.  If there's
   any area of the physical sciences and engineering that has as clear a
   story to tell, nanotechnology is probably it.
   
   "In fact, I don't think it's much of a stretch to see the national
   effort in nanotechnology as analogous to the space race of the 1960s.
   Once again, we are setting up a focused effort to make rapid advances
   while competing nations - economic competitors in this case - are
   breathing down our necks.  Only this time our goal is not to explore
   outer space, but rather inner space.
   
   "So you have a great story to tell; but you are the ones who need to
   tell it.
   
   "What I can promise, as I did at the start, is that you will have my
   support, and I will help you tell it.  And I already know how I want
   the story to end - with a healthy inter-agency program of
   nanotechnology research that includes a DOE Nanotechnology Center at
   Brookhaven National Laboratory.
   
   "Thank you."
   
                                    ###



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------