-Near Final Draft-

Sustaining America’s Competitive Edge

Enhancing Innovation and Competitiveness Through Investments in Fundamental Research

Report from a Workshop Sponsored by:

National Science Foundation National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering National Institute of Standards and Technology

-1-

-Table of Contents-

Workshop Participants page 3

Executive Summary 5

Background and Rationale for Workshop 7

Summary of Workshop Proceedings 10

Principal Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations 20

Workshop Agenda 32

-2-

-Workshop Participants-

WORKSHOP CO-CHAIR WORKSHOP CO-CHAIR

Dr. Joseph A. Miller Dr. Mark S. Wrighton Executive Vice President and Chancellor Chief Technology Officer Washington University in St. Louis Corning Incorporated

PARTICIPANTS

Professor Samuel I. Achilefu Dr. Melvin Koch Department of Radiology Director, Center for Process Analytical Chemistry Washington University in St. Louis University of Washington

Dr. Craig A. Blue Deputy Division Director of Technology Dr. Yakov Kutsovsky Materials Science and Technology Division Vice President and Global R&D Director Oak Ridge National Laboratory Cabot Corporation

Dr. Susan B. Butts Mr. Greg Leeming Senior Director of External Science Program Manager and Technology Programs Focus Center Research Program The Dow Chemical Company External Program Group Technology and Manufacturing Division Dr. Gary S. Calabrese Intel Corporation Chief Technology Officer and Vice President Rohm and Haas Dr. John M. Leonard Vice President Professor Charles P. Casey Global Pharmaceutical Research & Development Department of Chemistry Abbott Laboratories University of Wisconsin-Madison Dr. Charles McWherter Dr. William E. Clarke Vice President, Cardiovascular Research Executive Vice President and Pfizer Global Research and Development Chief Technology and Medical Officer GE Healthcare Professor Chad A. Mirkin Director of International Institute Dr. Larry R. Faulkner for Nanotechnology Former President of the University of Texas Chemistry Department President, Houston Endowment Inc. Northwestern University

Dr. Catherine (Katie) Hunt Professor Daniel G. Nocera President-Elect, American Chemical Society W. M. Keck Professor of Energy Leader, Technology Partnerships Department of Chemistry Rohm and Haas Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Ganesh (Kish) Kishore Mr. Thondiyil (Prem) Premkumar Vice President of Technology Global Manager of Industry Analysis DuPont Agriculture and Nutrition ExxonMobil Corporation DuPont Corporation Dr. Krishnan K. Sankaran

-3-

Senior Technical Fellow Materials & Processes Technology Phantom Works The Boeing Company

Professor Lynn Schneemeyer Vice Provost for Research and Professor of Chemistry Rutgers University

Mr. Edward T. Shonsey Chief Executive Officer Diversa Corporation

Professor Winston (Wole) O. Soboyejo Princeton Institute for the Science Dr. Darlene J.S. Solomon & Technology of Materials Agilent Chief Technology Officer and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Vice President Agilent Laboratories Princeton University Agilent Technologies

Dean Matthew Tirrell College of Engineering Richard A. Auhll Professor SPONSOR REPRESENTATIVES University of California, Santa Barbara

Dr. Kelsey D. Cook Program Officer Analytical and Surface Chemistry National Science Foundation

Dr. Albert Lee Commerce Science and Technology Fellow Dr. James R. Whetstone National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Chief, Process Measurements Division Bioengineering National Institute of Standards and National Institutes of Health Technology

INVITED GUESTS

Dr. Donald B. Anthony President and Executive Director Council for Chemical Research

Dr. Robert M. Berdahl President Dr. Samuel L. Stanley Association of American Universities Vice Chancellor for Research Washington University in St. Louis Dr. Brian K. Fitzgerald Executive Director Dr. John C. Vaughn The Business-Higher Education Forum Executive Vice President Association of American Universities Dr. W. Christopher Hollinsed Director, The Petroleum Research Fund Ms. Cynthia S. White American Chemical Society Director, Research Office Washington University in St. Louis

-4-

-Executive Summary-

Workshop Organization and Purpose

A two and a half-day workshop was held in Arlington, Virginia, December 3-5, 2006, focusing on where larger investments in fundamental research would likely yield the best return in enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. science- and technology-based industries. The workshop was a highly participatory meeting with about two thirds of the ~30-person group holding leadership positions in some of the most competitive science- and technology-based companies in the U.S. Other participants included representatives of some of America’s most important research universities. Sponsored by NSF, NIST, and NIBIB, the workshop was conceived to focus on areas where U.S. industry currently holds a competitive position, including chemistry, materials, pharmaceuticals, plant science, and biological imaging. Knowing of the several calls for enhanced federal investment in research in the physical sciences and engineering, especially, the workshop was convened with the purpose of adding specificity to areas of investment that would be most important to key U.S. industries such as the chemical industry, which flows almost half a trillion dollars of products through the U.S. economy and employs directly or indirectly about 4% of the U.S. workforce.

The central questions addressed by the workshop are: where are the fundamental knowledge gaps in key areas of technological importance, what human resource challenges exist, and what would be the most rewarding new investments in the federal research enterprise to address the most challenging scientific and technological issues and to realize the most promising new opportunities. Relationships between academic institutions and industry were also highlighted in the discussions, including issues related to technology transfer and intellectual property.

The workshop was conducted in a series of discussion-oriented plenary sessions, addressing areas such as materials and nanotechnology; biological imaging; biological chemistry and new pharmaceuticals; challenges and opportunities in chemistry; and plant science and its applications. Every invited participant from industry and academia had a speaking or leadership role, and time devoted to discussion was a significant fraction of each session. Guests from the sponsoring organizations were included in the discussion sessions, and Dr. Arden Bement, Director of NSF, addressed the workshop attendees regarding his view of critical issues affecting the U.S. research enterprise. Workshop guests also included representatives from the Association of American Universities, the Business Higher Education Forum, the American Chemical Society, and the Council for Chemical Research.

In drawing conclusions regarding how best to expand America’s lead in technological innovation, the workshop focused on the importance of talent, tools, and teamwork as the key elements of success in this endeavor. Talented people are absolutely essential to our continued strength. We are not doing enough today to draw talented people to science, engineering and mathematics. Moreover, we need to better

-5-

prepare such people to be both broad and deep, doers and problem-solvers as well as sources of creative new ideas. The tools for doing science at the forefront are expensive and complex. The competitive landscape reveals that we must do more infrastructurally to expand our global lead in science and technology. Better teamwork, both among talented people and among government, universities and companies is required to realize the potential from the investment in research. Talented people need to learn to work collaboratively and become effective as groups, while institutions need to embrace the common objective of expanding the U.S. leadership position we currently enjoy.

Principal Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations

The following observations, conclusions, and recommendations resulted from workshop presentations and discussions. These highlights are discussed and put in context in the text of the report.

1. The most important conclusion from the workshop is that the federal government needs to follow through on the calls for enhancing the investment in basic research in order to assure that there will be technological innovations in the future and to assure that the U.S. remains the world’s leader in such innovations.

2. Expanding the U.S. lead in innovative applications of science and technology in the future depends on a large and sustained investment today in fundamental science and engineering.

3. An enduring commitment to basic research, driven both by the quest for fundamental understanding and the global challenges we face, will be critical to expanding the U.S. lead in addressing areas such as energy, environment, individualized healthcare, feedstocks for chemicals and materials, and assuring an abundance of pure water and nutritious food.

4. Workshop participants concluded that there are opportunities for enhanced federal investment which are likely to result in an expanded technological leadership edge for the U.S. and that expanding our technological leadership position will bring important benefits to all Americans. Improving the nation’s technological lead has important economic value to the U.S., including large employment opportunities for many Americans in meaningful, high-paying jobs.

5. Special opportunities exist in certain areas of science and engineering including plant science, complex structural materials, electronic and optical materials and systems, energy and materials, nanotechnology science and applications, development of new pharmaceuticals, and imaging science and technology.

6. Vigorous and imaginative efforts are needed to attract more U.S. citizens in to science, engineering and mathematics, and women and members of minority groups are underutilized human resources of great importance. The talented people drawn to science and technology must be team players, innovators, problem-solvers and doers.

-6-

7. Supporting the infrastructure for the advance of science is a vital federal role, and essential for enhancing the lead of the U.S. in moving breakthroughs in science to major technological applications.

8. Universities and industry should focus primarily on moving innovative discoveries to commercial products, and less on near term financial gains to the university, while providing equitable sharing of rewards stemming from major commercial successes.

9. It is recommended that industry leaders and academic leaders convene to identify specific steps that can be taken to optimize relationships that will catalyze the pace of transfer of discovery to innovative products from fundamental research.

-7-

-Background and Rationale for Workshop-

The United States is scientifically and technologically competitive on the world scene, and industries based on America’s strength in science and technology are world leaders. However, other countries are investing heavily in science and engineering and expanding their research universities. There are enormous opportunities to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S., and in the last two years much has been written about the need for stronger science and technology programs to assure sustained innovation and competitiveness. In the popular press, Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist has written opinion pieces emphasizing issues covered in his book The World is Flat. Friedman in essence underscores the small world in which we live and the fact that innovation in science and technology is occurring everywhere and that the United States is no longer the only source of such innovation. Arguably, innovation is needed everywhere to assure economic prosperity around the world, but the United States cannot assume that it will sustain its leadership in innovation. The President has announced the American Competitiveness Initiative that may well result in a larger federal investment in areas of science and technology. Both emerging and mature science- and technology- based companies may realize important benefits from such an enhanced financial investment in fundamental science and engineering education and research.

Important organizations have issued reports or position papers on the innovation and competitiveness. All, in one way or another, call for careful consideration of how best to strengthen the prospects for United States leadership in science and technology through education and research. The Council on Competitiveness issued it report Innovate America in December of 2004, and called for a revitalization of frontier and multidisciplinary research, energizing of the entrepreneurial economy, and encouraging risk-taking and long term investment. The report also calls for strengthening of the workforce for science and technology and for enhancing the infrastructure for innovation. More recently, the National Academies issued its report Rising Above the Gathering Storm stemming from the work of a committee chaired by Norman R. Augustine. A key recommendation from this report is to “sustain and strengthen the nation’s traditional commitment to long-term basic research”. Even more recently, the Association of American Universities issued its call to “the Administration, Congress, and academia, with the help of the business sector, to implement a 21st Century National Defense Education and Innovation Initiative aimed at meeting the economic and security challenges we will face over the next half-century”.

It is with the foregoing background that the workshop convened December 3-5, 2006 to address ways to enhance innovation and competitiveness. The aim of the workshop was to bring in to focus the areas of fundamental research where science- and technology-based companies see the greatest opportunity. Closing knowledge gaps of importance and preparing people for careers in science and engineering in this highly competitive environment is a recurring theme, and yet relatively little specific effort has been directed to assessing the areas where fundamental research will likely have the most importance to science- and technology-based industries.

-8-

In addition to identifying knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to accelerate the pace of innovation, consideration needs to be given to the matter of the talent pool leaving universities and entering science- and technology-based companies. The workshop participants addressed the human resource needs of such companies and identified opportunities to improve the preparation of scientists and engineers for their role in assuring America’s competitiveness.

-9-

-Summary of Workshop Proceedings-

The workshop engaged leaders from some of America’s most competitive science- and technology-based companies and academic leaders working at the forefront of knowledge creation in science and engineering. The academic community, of course, also works closely with talented students at all levels and represents the source of the human resources needed for technological innovation.

All invited participants in the workshop were active participants in the working sessions and many distinguished guests also contributed to the program. Each session engendered good discussion from a wide range of both academic and industry participants.

This Summary of Workshop Proceedings is presented in the sections that follow. The aim in this summary is to provide an overview of key contributions in the plenary sessions and in the discussions. This summary is not a complete account of all that was presented, but is a synopsis.

A. Workforce: Winning With People

Before a chemical company can develop a new product, before a physicist conceives of a new experiment, before any engineer unveils even the crudest prototype, they all need one thing: ideas. Innovation begins with ideas. To innovate, a successful company recognizes a new opportunity and combines its technologies to uniquely meet that opportunity. In this way, early choices define a company’s innovation portfolio and set the stage for its future.

To ensure U.S. competitiveness, science-based companies need a steady diet of good ideas—from internal labs and staff, government and academic collaborators, customers, and even global competitors. How can the U.S. develop a reservoir of high- quality ideas? Workshop co-chair Dr. Joseph Miller, chief technology officer and executive vice president of Corning Incorporated, with Mr. Thondiyil Premkumar, global manager of industry analysis at ExxonMobil, and Dr. Charles Casey, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, discussed this critical issue. Workshop participants identified four ways that policymakers can spark industrial innovation:

*Recognize needed innovation skills. Industry needs creative scientists who can work in changing environments, recognize opportunities for new technologies, and switch gears. Rather than single-field specialists, industry needs scientists who can work, or collaborate, across fields. Researchers must be both communicators/team-players and tacticians. Finally, industry innovators must be experienced in commercial, technology, and manufacturing disciplines, with a sense for how to integrate these disciplines to deliver an innovation.

-10-

*Develop students’ innovation skills. Undergraduate and graduate science students should be aware of industry needs and be encouraged to pursue skills that would make them effective industry leaders. Students need more than science fundamentals. They need an understanding of technology, how creativity can be applied, and how an idea becomes a product.

*Support public-private partnerships. Already, countries such as China, India, Taiwan, and Singapore formally establish three-way partnerships that unite government, academia, and industry behind goals to stimulate innovation. To compete, the U.S. must also leverage its leadership, setting an innovation agenda and partnering for progress.

*Encourage more citizens to pursue chemistry. The number of U.S. citizens pursuing a chemistry career is consistently dropping, even as critical challenges—such as energy, terrorism, and environmental concerns—require solutions from the field. To reverse this “brain drain,” policymakers should actively support the marketing and education of chemistry to all students, beginning in the elementary grades, as well as to the public at large. This campaign should use all available public education tools to convey that chemistry is critical—and cool.

B. Nanotechnology

Scientists worldwide are increasingly developing nanotechnology materials, or structures at sub-micron sizes. At this tiny size, materials can have unusual properties of potential practical importance such as optical and electrical characteristics. Nanotechnology hold promise for better medical imaging, more accurate diagnostics, stronger materials, faster computer chips, and more effective detergents, among other products.

Worldwide, the U.S. is a leader in nanotechnology. But Japan, in particular, is rapidly advancing, with a specific edge: its leaders have established academic-industry partnerships, pooling resources to foster innovation. By contrast, nanotechnology in the U.S. is splintered. Academic scientists focus on invention, while industry pursues commercialization--- leaving a yawning development gap in the middle. The U.S. is struggling to remain competitive in the design and manufacture of compound nanomaterials, which hold some of nanotechnology’s most promising practical applications.

At the workshop, Dr. Yakov Kutsovsky, vice president and global R&D director of Cabot Corporation, and Dr. Chad Mirkin, director of Northwestern University’s International Institute for Nanotechnology, explored nanotechnology issues. Dr. Daniel Nocera, a professor of energy and chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, moderated the resulting discussion, which specified three critical areas in which U.S. nanotechnology must sharpen its competitive advantage:

-11-

*Knowledge generation. Today’s scientists and engineers are primarily trained to be either academic “explainers” or industrial “problem-solvers.” Success in nanotechnology, however, requires both perspectives. Policymakers should support a cooperative system of training for academic and industrial nanotechnology researchers, including sabbaticals that allow researchers from industry to spend time working in academia, and vice versa. This concept of encouraging the development of innovative “problem-solvers” became a recurring point of emphasis in other discussions throughout the workshop.

*Knowledge application. To take advantage of new ideas, collaboration between industry and academics must extend further, to technology transfer. Today, negotiation of intellectual property issues is slowing innovation and tempering enthusiasm for collaboration. To move forward, policymakers should encourage open innovation. In particular, government, industry, and academia should align around a framework of common, long-term goals for nanotechnology. What are industry’s nanotechnology needs in the U.S.? This question should drive nanotechnology development, from an academic’s early idea to a company’s final product.

*Safety. Because nanomaterials have unique chemical and physical properties, they bring new risks to human health or the environment. To assess these risks, nanotechnology researchers need support to develop model systems, define material classes, and conduct speedy toxicology tests. In short, they need measurement technologies. The government also should provide regulatory guidance and support public education about nanotechnology risks, both real and perceived.

C. Materials

Modern airplanes still depend on old technology in certain materials areas. In particular, compound metallic alloys developed decades ago, are used in commercial aircraft that work reasonably well to carry passengers and their items across the globe. But a future of faster, more economic travel by U.S. citizens—or military—depends on advanced materials. Hypersonic commercial aircraft remain a dream.

Among the critical challenges in developing commercial hypersonic aircraft are ones associated with materials. Specifically, new composite materials are needed that will be strong, light, and perform well at elevated temperatures. Even for conventional commercial aircraft, advances in materials could yield planes that require less fuel and maintenance. Aging airplanes face chronic problems stemming from inadequate understanding of complex materials systems.

China, Russia, and Japan compete with the U.S. on the international aerospace market. In talks by Dr. Krishnan Sankaran, a senior technical fellow in materials and processes technology at The Boeing Company, and Dr. Winston Soboyejo, director of the undergraduate program at Princeton University’s Institute for the Science & Technology

-12-

of Materials, workshop participants identified two ways that policymakers can stimulate research on materials:

*Need to set goals. There is an opportunity to energize materials research by creating a 30-year horizon to develop new materials, with short-, medium-, and long-term goals. For example, there is an opportunity to experiment with nanotechnology to develop new nickel-based alloys. As in other fields, there is value in supporting bio- inspired designs, using neural networks and other tools to create science-based models of flight. This would accelerate the pace of materials discovery.

*Redesign graduate education. Graduate training should be more flexible, exposing engineering and science students to industry, entrepreneurship, and international faculty. At the faculty level, provide fellowships and sabbatical opportunities for faculty to work in the aerospace industry, with a mentor.

D. The Chemical Industry

From paint to plants, the chemical industry drives the American economy. Economic studies suggest that a sustained annual federal investment of $1 billion in chemical sciences R&D will yield annual gains of at least $8 billion in tax revenues, $40 billion in gross domestic product, and many new jobs. Simply put, a modest sustained investment in chemistry generates a huge return.

Historically, the chemical industry has been a key player behind industrial booms, including the rise of the steel industry and the development of fossil fuels, silicon, and copper. The next boom is likely to be biological. Looking ahead, chemistry is also key to critical challenges facing the world today, including energy, food, water, security, and human health.

But the chemical industry—from students, jobs, and ideas to patents and tax revenue—is increasingly moving to expand investment in Asia. In just one example, the century-old American company Rohm & Haas, an $8 billion specialty chemicals corporation, recently spent $30 million to open its second R&D facility in China, with 1500 employees. There are talented researchers, excellent manufacturing expertise, and growing markets attracting the chemical industry to Asia. At the same time, students within the U.S. are not pursuing chemistry research careers at the same pace as two decades ago. The move to Asia and the diminished interest among U.S. students raises the concern that U.S. leadership in chemistry may shift to Asia.

In short, chemistry is at a crossroads. Will we allow the industry—a source of economic steam and new technology—to disappear from the U.S. landscape? Or will we seize upon existing American advantages to enhance our lead, securing our place as a scientific leader? If so, the time to invest in basic chemistry is right now. To compete in 2022, the chemical industry needs the sustained investment over a long period of time that has built the powerhouse of today from forethoughtful investments years ago.

-13-

To address these issues, the workshop heard from: Dr. Gary Calabrese, chief technology officer and vice president of Rohm & Haas; Dr. Catherine Hunt, leader of technology partnerships at Rohm & Haas and president of the American Chemical Society; and Dr. Donald Anthony, president and executive director of The Council for Chemical Research. Their comments, and ensuing discussion, identified four critical opportunities to strengthen America’s lead in the changing, global chemical industry:

*New tools to predict complex systems. Across fields, chemists increasingly pursue dynamic and changing materials, from molecules that self-assemble to solutions that change temperature. These complex materials--some a blend of biological and synthetic ingredients—are new and different, with behavior that cannot be predicted by old analytical tools. The chemical industry needs a new generation of predictive tools.

*New talent. The chemical industry needs a pipeline of creative students who can learn quickly, adapt to the changing global economy, and collaborate with scientists in diverse fields. Today’s students must be not only bright but also quick on their feet.

*Manufacturing improvements. Beyond tools and talent, the U.S. chemical industry needs innovation in manufacturing, to improve scale-up, reduce the number of workers, and cut waste.

*New models for academic collaboration. Partnerships between U.S. companies and universities are complicated by lengthy negotiations over intellectual property rights to scientific discoveries. In many instances, U.S. companies are finding it easier to partner with universities in other countries. Companies and universities need to find new ways to collaborate to circumvent the intellectual property discussions that are slowing the pace of cooperative research.

E. Imaging

Healthcare providers speak of the “Big 6”: cardiac disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and colon, breast, and lung cancers. This year, the Big 6 will generate U.S. healthcare costs of $600 billion. As the population ages, and obesity increases, the situation will worsen. To lower these costs—and to save lives—doctors must efficiently diagnose the Big 6 early and find treatments that work.

Molecular imaging can be a key contributor to improving diagnostic medicine. Combining the best of physics, engineering, and informatics, imaging tools offer a snapshot inside a human body. And the picture is getting clearer all the time, as imaging tools become more accurate, less invasive, and easier to use. Increasingly, doctors will be able to see inside a patient to detect abnormalities and to monitor the effects of treatment.

-14-

The cost of imaging is significant. Computer tomography to detect breast cancer may require $25 million and 5 years to develop. However, a tool that accurately detects most breast cancer would represent extraordinary cost savings. As molecular imaging evolves, medical care will increasingly incorporate these tools.

Dr. William Clarke, executive vice president and chief technology and medical officer of G.E. Healthcare, and Dr. Samuel Achilefu, a radiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, discussed the promise and challenges of molecular imaging, leading the workshop to identify three needs for the U.S. to surge ahead of competitors in this field:

*Manpower. Molecular imaging is an interdisciplinary field, and traditional academic disciplines poorly train students to bridge chemistry, physics, and mathematics. At a time when hundreds of Ph.D.-level chemists are looking for work, G.E. Healthcare, alone, could use 50 radiochemists. This mismatch of jobs and job-seekers could be solved with a targeted curriculum or training program.

*Hardware. Few academic institutions can afford current imaging equipment, such as cyclotrons. Without government funds to purchase equipment, many researchers will be unable to take part in the molecular imaging revolution, threatening the country’s lead in this field. This issue was directly addressed in a dedicated session on infrastructure.

*Long-term support. Few researchers can accomplish significant imaging research programs in three years, the duration of most National Science Foundation research grants. Fundamental studies in the medical imaging and clinical studies require a longer term of support, like those supported by the National Institutes of Health.

F. Plant Science and Biotechnology

Already a major contributor to the American economy, agriculture is taking on a modern twist, as plant scientists turn to crops for alternative energy and chemical feedstocks, and improved nutrition. Additionally, plant science can lead to pesticide- resistant and drought-tolerant plants that will reduce adverse environmental effects from pesticides and expand land areas suitable for productive agriculture. With the right investment, the U.S. can leverage its considerable edge in plant science to secure a position as the world leader of this evolving field.

Dr. Ganesh Kishore, vice president of technology at DuPont Agriculture and Nutrition, and Edward Shonsey, chief executive officer of Diversa Corporation, shared insight into the changing world of plant science and biotechnology. Their comments, and the resulting discussion, exposed several areas in which federal investment would enhance America’s leadership role in these fields:

-15-

*Alternative fuels. Scientists can already convert food crops such as corn to fuels such as ethanol. While yield of food crops has increased very significantly and will continue to do so through basic research in plant science, a key to success in fuels from plants is to find efficient ways of converting cellulosic material to useful fuels.

*Plant science and bioengineered crops. With the threat of climate change, farmers worldwide may grapple with extreme weather and its effects, including more severe storms, increased periods of drought or rain, changing pests, or temperature swings. Basic research is needed to identify, test, and develop crop seeds with natural or engineered resistance to diverse stresses. Bioengineering of plants is already paying handsome dividends and there is a major opportunity to expand America’s lead in this important area of science and application.

The federal government invests relatively modestly in plant science—less than a tenth of its investment in the National Institutes of Health. To confront current environmental challenges, develop new energy sources, enhance the yield of food crops, and enhance the nutritional value of food from plants, the U.S. should rapidly expand its investment in plant science. Doubling two times over the next ten years would still be a relatively modest investment, compared to other federal investments in science and technology.

G. Measurement, Instrumentation, and Applications

From DNA tests to computer processors, technical tests and instruments continue to get faster, more accurate, and less invasive. This innovation on the outside results from hidden systems on the inside, including tools such as data converters, measurement sensors, and computers. It’s this underbelly of any given technology—or the modern equivalent of cogs-and-wheels—that remodels existing products into wholly new inventions. Consider the jump from yesterday’s PC to today’s PDA.

Across electronics and the life sciences, in particular, changing technology promises to continue revolutionizing American life. Dr. Darlene Solomon, chief technology officer and vice president of laboratories at Agilent Technologies, and Dr. Larry Faulkner, president of Houston Endowment, Inc., led discussion of this critical, constant technological change. Participants pinpointed two areas in which policymakers could promote advances:

*Enhance measurement science and technology. Opportunities to expand the U.S. innovation lead exist in electronic and bio-analytical measurement. In electronics, researchers are working toward faster, cheaper, and less invasive measurements, by developing better measures of electrical and optical signals; high-performance data converters to turn analog signals into digital content; combined communication and measurement networks; and modular architectures for instruments and sensors. In bio- analytical research, including emerging personalized medicine and, more broadly,

-16-

molecular biology, researchers are pursuing: instrument miniaturization, such as lab chips; massive parallelism; automation; and speed.

*Exploit interdisciplinary opportunity. In this field, as across science, the real paradigm shifts are occurring based on interdisciplinary research that combine technologies and sciences to transcend traditional industry models.

H. Pharmaceutical Development & Manufacturing

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is facing significant challenges. For decades, the industry enjoyed rapid growth, fueled by blockbuster drugs that generated enough profit for pharma companies to absorb the failure of most new molecular entities. But this business model may not be sustainable. Today’s drug company can spend $1 billion and 12 years selecting, testing, and developing a new pharmaceutical. Major investments are made in developments that never yield a commercial drug. The overall process is very inefficient with only one in 13 compounds put in pre-clinical testing actually reaching the market today.

That’s bad news for the American economy—and consumer. To enhance efficiency and develop a stronger pipeline of efficacious drugs, U.S. pharma companies must become ever more innovative.

Following presentations by Dr. John Leonard, vice president of global pharmaceutical research & development at Abbott Laboratories, and Dr. Charles McWherter, vice president of cardiovascular research at Pfizer Global Research and Development, workshop participants identified investments in three basic research areas that would help revitalize U.S. drug discovery and development:

*New programs. To fundamentally understand diseases, researchers can build on the information from the Human Genome Project. Among specific positive actions, policymakers should support the creation of a national phenotype collection, or a database that links patients’ specific genetic make-up (genotypes) to their symptoms or physical characteristics (phenotypes). These efforts will be important in realizing the promise of “individualized medicine” to optimize drugs and dosage for the individual.

*A public chemical library. To better find potential drugs, researchers need funding to generate a central, diverse chemical library. This public library of chemical structures would become a valuable U.S. resource available to researchers across fields. In addition, scientists need support to develop technological tools that predict molecular behavior, such as virtual screening and drug-discovery assays.

*Better models. To accurately and quickly predict whether a potential drug candidate will work, researchers need better models. They need both models of chronic, degenerative human disease and more efficient methods for producing genetically engineered animal models of a given treatment.

-17-

I. Infrastructure: Essential to Leadership

Historically, the U.S. has maintained the world’s top research infrastructure, from individual labs to government centers. Today, our challenge is to preserve this eminence while incorporating the top new technologies into basic research. Too much time and opportunity is wasted as researchers attempt to negotiate access to limited facilities or— even worse—forgo cutting-edge research altogether due to a lack of high-end equipment. Meanwhile, universities struggle to find continued funds to operate and maintain equipment over time.

For solutions, workshop participants listened to a talk by Dr. Matthew Tirrell, dean of the college of engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara, before reaching a single, unanimous conclusion:

*Build to share. National centers of infrastructure already provide critical technology to certain fields, such as astronomy. Similarly, new clinical centers, offering high-resolution imaging and related molecular tools, would leverage federal investment while providing critical access to scientists across disciplines and schools. At a smaller level, regional or university system-wide facilities, perhaps funded by a mix of private and public funds, could open up access to new technology in research hotspots across the country. With this diversified approach, the U.S. can maintain its infrastructure excellence while encouraging new science at a sustainable cost.

J. Intellectual Property: A Stumbling Block?

U.S. innovation is often a relay race: universities run with basic research and then hand it off, like a baton, to companies, which then complete the race with a finished product. In recent years, however, this smooth transition has faltered, as universities and companies negotiate or disagree over the terms of intellectual property rights. Taken cumulatively, such failed negotiations threaten U.S. competitiveness, as both companies and universities increasingly seek overseas partners more willing to negotiate favorably.

Dr. Susan Butts, senior director of external science and technology programs at the Dow Chemical Company, led a discussion on intellectual property, in which workshop participants discussed ways to improve the partnership between industry and academia:

*Consider standardizing. Because each university determines its own intellectual property policies, their terms vary considerably. This variance complicates negotiations and drives companies to favor partnerships with certain universities over others. Universities could consider adopting standard agreements. Simpler, a given university should consider developing a uniform agreement to be used with all companies with which it partners. Industry and university leaders should convene to address this issue.

-18-

*Industry funding. U.S. industry supports academic researchers, and this support can prove vital to advancing an idea, enhancing education of students, and building understanding among academicians of the challenges being faced by companies and better appreciation for academic institutions and their challenges by industry leaders. Building the value of industry-university partnerships to each partner should be a conscious effort on the part of both industry and academia.

-19-

-Principal Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations-

Workshop participants engaged in a comprehensive discussion of issues of most importance in securing America’s competitive edge. Drawing on the discussions, materials presented in the plenary sessions, and consideration of numerous reports on the status of America’s competitiveness and innovative ability, this section represents a synthesis of the workshop.

Fundamental Research of the Past is Critical to Technological Success of the Present

The key, recurring theme from the sessions of the workshop is that results from fundamental scientific research developed decades ago are now having important technological and commercial consequences. Many of these practical consequences were unanticipated at the time of exciting scientific research. To illustrate, a large fundamental knowledge base in electronic structure of atoms, molecules, and semiconductors and in optics has developed over a long period of time. Such fundamental knowledge contributed by researchers beginning decades ago has led to the development of lasers with practical applications in devices ranging from cash register scanners, to surgical devices, CD and DVD players, pointers, cutting tools, and printers. Indeed, lasers are now a part of the arsenal of advanced technologies that contributes to advances in the fields of communications and computing and in other areas of science through state-of- the-art instrumentation such as spectrometers and microscopes. But the scientists and engineers of an earlier era surely did not foresee the pervasive use of lasers in our highly technological society. It is also important to note that fundamental advances in one area often bring significant benefits to another. For example, advances in imaging technology are not only important in advancing human health, but advanced imaging technology has benefited oil and gas exploration efforts. The key conclusion is that expanding the U.S. lead in innovative applications of science and technology in the future depends on a large and sustained investment today in fundamental science and engineering.

While it is well-appreciated that unforeseen applications stem from basic research, it is also necessary to realize that technological needs can often drive a fruitful basic research agenda. Pressing challenges in many areas call for an investment in fundamental research dedicated to addressing key technological needs. For example, with the ability to enhance food crop yields from advanced plant science, can similar plant science efforts enhance the yields of non-food crops for the ultimate production of biomass to be converted to biomass? Or can we develop microbes and enzymes effective in efficient conversion of cellulosic plant matter to useful liquid fuels? Technological challenges we face in other areas will doubtless spawn compelling basic research that will lead to both targeted and unforeseen applications of great importance to America’s competitiveness. An enduring commitment to basic research, driven both by the quest for fundamental understanding and the global challenges we face, will be

-20-

critical to expanding the U.S. lead in addressing areas such as energy, environment, advancing human health, and assuring an abundance of pure water and nutritious food.

Reaffirmation of the importance of fundamental science and engineering to the nation’s future in economic terms was clearly illustrated by a report from the Council for Chemical Research. The study was reviewed by workshop participants and shows that $1 billion invested in fundamental research by the federal government results in a very handsome, eight-fold financial return in the form of tax revenue alone associated with the commercial success of the chemical industry. Of course, the success of the chemical industry today stems from yesterday’s investment by the federal government. Future success hinges on an enduring federal investment in fundamental chemical research. Workshop participants concluded that there are opportunities for enhanced federal investment which are likely to result in an expanded technological leadership edge for the U.S. and that expanding our technological leadership position will bring important benefits to all Americans. Improving the nation’s technological lead has important economic value to the U.S., including large employment opportunities for many Americans in meaningful, high-paying jobs.

Science and Technology Will Assure U.S. Leadership in Areas of Great Significance

Mobilizing the U.S. by investments in science and technology will have important positive consequences in at least six critical areas:

1. Energy. It is clear that a bright future for developed countries depends on abundant, affordable energy. While no single energy technology is likely to provide all U.S. needs, new energy resources for the U.S. are possible from research in a number of areas from photovoltaic materials to plant science.

2. Environment. Energy and environment are inextricably linked. Sustainability depends on mitigating consequences from the combustion of fossil fuel and expanding the use of renewable resources. Success in efforts to mitigate accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is essential.

3. Water. Clean, abundant water is a growing challenge, both domestically and internationally. Research to develop approaches to purify water and to recycle water will be vital to future generations. Securing and sustaining pure water supplies all around the world is an imperative.

4. Food. Advances in plant science promise higher crop yield, and crops that can resist insects to minimize the use of pesticides. Further there is the prospect of more nutritious food through advanced plant science and to develop food crops with greater tolerance to stress (e.g. temperature, water).

-21-

Assuring safety and security of food supplies is also important to every citizen.

5. Individualized Healthcare. Advances in genetics and genomics and an understanding of human biology have raised the prospect of individualized medicine through advanced pharmaceuticals. More efficacious drugs and more efficacious doses depend on advancing the fundamental knowledge base. Further, effort must be extended to include work to identify the biological signatures of importance to diagnosis and treatment of disease. Research in to proteomics, metabolomics, and other biomarkers is also of importance in realizing individualized medicine.

6. Alternate Feedstocks for Chemicals and Materials. With the depletion of oil, there is a need to consider the long term prospect of feedstocks from plants for the chemical industry.

Priorities for Expanding Future Investments in Research

The most important conclusion from the workshop is that the federal government needs to follow through on the calls for enhancing the investment in basic research in order to assure that there will be technological innovations in the future and to assure that the U.S. remains the world’s leader in such innovations. Several areas of science and engineering appear to be especially important to industries that are already very successful but where fundamental work remains vital to sustaining the technological leadership position we now held by U.S. industry. While much of the direct federal investment in basic research is to support academia and national laboratories, the federal government must embrace policies that nurture the vitality of the corporate research and development enterprise. A favorable tax policy, for example, will encourage industry to invest vigorously in their R&D efforts to take advantage of the research conducted in universities and national laboratories.

There are clear areas where enhancing the federal investment will be rewarding. Today, the National Science Foundation is currently well-behind the funding level authorized years ago, and a doubling of the budget for this agency on the timeframe of five years would be a significant step in addressing the exciting science and engineering being proposed by the academic community. The NSF has been able to wisely use the increases in its budget in the past, but only incremental improvement in the average grant size and duration has been made. Increasing the average grant size and the duration of the award period have long been priorities of NSF, but modest increases in budget have precluded significant progress. With a low funding rate for proposals receiving strong support from peer review, coupled with low average grant size and short duration, the overall situation is dangerously discouraging to the science and engineering community and provides an additional barrier to enticing talented young people in to the physical sciences and engineering disciplines. The flattening of the budget of the National

-22-

Institutes of Health has had a similarly chilling effect on the proposing community, with funding rates plummeting, at a time of such opportunity.

Focused investment in fundamental science and engineering, development of the human resources needed in the future, strengthening the relationship of industry and academia can all contribute to accelerating the move from scientific “discovery” to new “products”. Importantly, too, discoveries do not always lead to a new product. Discovery makes existing products less expensive and with less environmental impact. All discovery can lead to “economic value”, and quickening the pace of translating discovery to economic value will enhance America’s lead in technological innovation.

Workshop participants sought to identify specific areas for future investment. Where do federal basic science and engineering research and education programs play a role in enhancing innovation and competitiveness? Where do U.S. companies already have an edge, offering opportunity for basic research to accelerate progress? In two days of talks and collaborative discussion during the workshop, 30 U.S. corporate and academic leaders addressed these questions. Together, they identified specific goals for the talent, tools, and teamwork needed to expand America’s lead in innovation, and secure its place as the global pacesetter in and science and technology.

Success in all science and technology fields will require talent, tools, and teamwork. And although a balanced research portfolio is key to U.S. prosperity, several areas emerged from considerations of where exciting practical applications lie ahead. While a few specific areas are noted here, it should be emphasized that enabling technologies such as analytical and engineering sciences, broadly, are essential to improving our competitiveness in accelerating the pace of discovery, development, and process optimization by U.S. industry. The following are areas identified for special consideration:

a. Plant Science. The total federal investment in basic plant science research is about $500 million. This level of investment appears to be very modest, considering the potential for plant science in food and energy production and in providing a potential new source of feedstocks for the chemical industry. Much discussion exists currently related to the development of biofuels, but there remain exciting opportunities to dramatically improve crop yields and to reduce the needs for pesticides and fertilizers thereby contributing to addressing environmental concerns. Enhanced investment in the area of plant science could enhance the U.S. position in agricultural biotechnology and provide the talent pool needed by U.S. industry to advance this field. It is clear that an aggressive rate of doubling the budget for plant science is a major opportunity for the U.S.

b. Complex Structural Materials Systems. Complex materials and materials systems are of importance in devices and in sophisticated structures such as commercial and military aircraft and the modern automobile. High performance materials used in advanced aircraft have been developed to meet the ever greater demands for strength with lower mass, but prediction of properties, processing

-23-

and manufacture of new materials remain critical areas of opportunity for basic researchers. It is noteworthy that the U.S. is a dominant player in advanced aircraft, and sustaining this technological leadership position will be essential to both the commercial and defense sectors. Enhancing understanding of manufacturing involving complex materials will be valuable in many sectors of the economy.

c. Electronic and Optical Materials and Systems. State-of-the-art electronics are being developed with critical dimensions in the range of ~65nm. This dimensional scale requires new approaches in processing, evaluation, characterization, and design, and new materials, even new theory, are needed to realize the promise from the ability to assemble materials in a purposeful way at the density and dimensions now envisioned. Integration of electronic and optical materials continues to represent a major technological opportunity, and basic research will contribute to U.S. competitiveness in the communications and information technology industries so vital to society today. d. Energy and Materials. Today, solid state photovoltaic devices have been demonstrated to have efficiencies of ~40% for the conversion of sunlight to electricity. Can such photovoltaic devices be deployed at a scale of 100’s of square kilometers? Research is needed to identify ways to lower the cost of photovoltaic systems to bring about the development of large scale systems at electricity prices competitive with fossil fuel-fired power plants. Other materials systems represent ways of dramatically improving insulation properties in building materials. For all materials there is the need to develop the processes for the practical and large scale manufacturing. This is an area of special opportunity, for example, in the area of photovoltaic materials where very large area materials are needed to provide a meaningful fraction of U.S. energy. But advances in processing and process monitoring is vital to all materials and chemicals manufacturing where quality, cost, and “uptime” are essential to sustaining America’s competitive edge in technology.

e. Nanotechnology: Science and Applications. The U.S. is at the forefront of fundamental research in the area of nanotechnology, although Asia and Europe are making major financial commitments in this area. The fact that the world’s largest semiconductor chip manufacturer, U.S.-based Intel, builds millions of chips with nanoscale transistors is evidence that this field must be taken very seriously. Nanotechnology involves the preparation, characterization, and assembly of materials systems on the nanometer length scale. The field, although in its infancy in many respects, has already led to the development of hundreds of new companies. These companies will help drive the expansion of the U.S. economy and create new and powerful technological capabilities. Applications range from new electronic and optical devices to high performance structural materials, to sensors used for purposes ranging from medical care to bioterrorism defense, to agents for imaging and therapy in treating disease. Fueling the advance of the fundamentals associated with nanotechnology will sustain a

-24-

leadership role for the U.S. in this emerging area of science and technology where exciting prospects for innovative applications exist. Specific needs in nanotechnology include advanced measurement, characterization and manufacturing methods; improved predictive models of physical and electronic properties; and environmental and health studies of nanomaterials. f. Development of New Pharmaceuticals. Development of new drugs to treat and prevent disease has proven to be enormously rewarding in advancing human health. Perhaps no class of drugs illustrates the impact better than the statins that have proven to be effective in lowering cholesterol and thereby diminishing cardiovascular disease. With world leadership in areas like genetics and genomics and a powerful biomedical research enterprise there is the potential for major advances in molecular medicine and individualized medicine. However, fundamental research is needed radically improve the efficiency of identifying effective, safe drugs and reducing the spiraling cost of manufacturing and to bring them to human use. Understanding human toxicity will help to discard drug candidates earlier in the development process, thereby reducing costs and potentially saving lives. Structural biology, synthetic chemistry, bioinformatics, and pharmacogenetics, advanced in vitro diagnostics and process technologies remain vital areas of basic research essential to furthering progress. As our population ages, the need for medicines increases. Medicinals to treat diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases are all possibilities for the future that can be realized through advancing fundamental research. Addressing challenges from existing and new infectious diseases requires a commitment to developing the capability to develop new vaccines. g. Imaging Science and Technology. The ability to image the interior of living beings has revolutionized diagnostic medicine and surgical procedures. For example, neurosurgery suites are being equipped with high resolution magnetic resonance imaging to assure that surgical removal of brain tumors is done most effectively. Positron emission tomography is helping us to understand brain functions. Development of the virtual colonoscopy may yield a commonplace approach to assessing whether an individual has colon cancer. The modern advance of bioimaging stems from fundamental research in a large number of areas. Today, development of contrast mechanisms for molecular imaging is at the core of being able to harness post-genomic information for improved healthcare. Such advances are needed to assure that higher resolution, functional imaging is developed and to assure that high-throughput, low-cost imaging for diagnostic medicine is available. Imaging research remains a high potential opportunity to improve the outcomes from health challenges, to prevent major health problems, and to lower the cost of improving human health. It should also be understood that advances in imaging science can be useful in advancing science itself, including the biology of complex living systems, and in understanding and assessing complex materials systems, from microelectronics to high performance composites.

-25-

Talent is Needed: Development of Human Resources for Science and Engineering

The low level of interest in science, mathematics, and engineering among talented U.S. citizens is a well-appreciated and widely discussed concern. It is imperative that creative steps be taken to recruit our most talented people in to science and technology areas for their careers. Workshop participants focused on two particular issues: (a) the underrepresentation of women and members of minority groups and (b) the nature of the people needed today to contribute to advancing innovation.

a. Women and Underrepresented Minority Groups. Vigorous, creative efforts are needed immediately to draw talented people in to science, mathematics, and engineering. Special focus needs to be extended to engaging women and members of minority groups. While there is documented progress in drawing in women and members of underrepresented groups, the pace of change is woefully inadequate to realize the needs of the technology community. With women now slightly more heavily represented than men in college, perhaps there is an opportunity to make more rapid progress in recruiting women to science, mathematics and engineering. However, recruiting the most talented people to these areas is challenging, in part, because of the major differences students see in pursuing technology areas versus the professions of business, law, and medicine, for example. Engaging science and engineering undergraduates in research holds the promise of inspiring students and would likely build greater interest among these students in pursuing technology-based fields. Further, innovative and non- traditional teaching strategies in the classroom are needed to excite the interest of diverse students in science and engineering. Advanced degree programs need to be carefully considered to address the time it takes to earn the research intensive doctoral degrees, especially considering that many Ph.D. holders undertake a postdoctoral educational experience prior to beginning their independent career. The long gestation time to an independent career in science or engineering is a serious challenge in attempting to draw the most talented students from professional degree programs where well-defined degree requirements assure the successful students meaningful employment after a relatively short period of advanced education.

b. The Talent We Need: Team Members and Innovators. The preparation of leaders in science and technology needs to respond to the needs of leading science and technology-based industries. “Problem solver”, “team player”, “highly creative”, and “broad and deep” are all descriptors of the people needed for a vibrant environment for technological innovation. Importantly, advances in technology have transformed the way science is done. Yesterday’s scientist worked within a specific field, often qualitatively describing a subject. Today, researchers work across disciplines, languages and continents. The academic community recognizes that some of the most interesting areas of research are at the interfaces between traditional disciplines. However, it is important to provide an undergraduate and graduate education experience for research leaders giving

-26-

them depth in a field to enable them to bring a strong disciplinary perspective to an interdisciplinary problem. Academicians and industry leaders should carefully review the graduate education enterprise and consider innovations in the education experience to optimize the prospects for success in today’s highly competitive world of science and technology-based industry. Among the possible innovations would be an international experience in research in a university or industry laboratory.

Workshop participants noted the broad need to attract more U.S. citizens in to the physical sciences. For the last 16 years, the number of Ph.D. chemistry graduates in the U.S. has held roughly constant, at 2000-2200 graduates per year. This plateau masks a real decline in the number of graduates who are American citizens. There has been a developing challenge in physics, too: Only half as many U.S. undergraduates receive physics bachelor’s degrees today than students did 50 years ago.

Numerous policy proposals, including the American Competitiveness Initiative, have called for improvements in math, science, and technological education for K-12 students. Curriculum improvement would go a long way to generate more proficient students. To affect American industry, however, science students need not only to be taught—but also inspired to launch scientific careers.

To inspire more science students, policymakers should actively support the use of a broad array of public education tools to market science, including the creation of comprehensive marketing plans to raise awareness among educators, parents, and students that science skills are vital to our knowledge economy. By introducing students to science innovation early, educators may better attract more students to the field. A supportive culture is critical. Universities can assist in encouraging more physical science students by providing “start-up packages” for new research faculty that include resources for innovation in teaching undergraduates and for engaging undergraduates and high school students in research. Success in such efforts should be among the criteria for promotion and compensation increases for faculty at research universities.

Workshop participants identified a need to better prepare students to be innovators. Federal support should be granted to university-industry consortia to: (1) document the specific innovation skills that students need to succeed in a knowledge economy and (2) offer curriculum tools to incorporate these skills into undergraduate and graduate science coursework. Work in these two areas is being supported by the Kauffman Foundation of Kansas City at university campuses across the country. Accelerating such progress and sustaining it broadly is an appropriate role of the federal government.

Innovation skills involve creativity, flexibility, and collaboration. Innovators think across fields, understand the concept of engineering an idea to product, and communicate well. They can work in changing environments and recognize opportunities for new technologies. Armed with these skills and grounded in science fundamentals, professionals can collectively create new industries, grapple with crises, and move

-27-

forward. By partnering, the federal government and private foundations; higher education; K-12 education; and business could develop curriculum tools and foster a culture of innovation for science students.

Teaching innovation skills to professionals working today is also an important opportunity to realize some immediate gains. Policymakers should support a cooperative system of training for academic and industrial researchers across the physical and chemical sciences, allowing researchers from industry to spend time working in a university setting, and vice versa. This kind of experiential learning might take the form of a sabbatical leave, with schools encouraging young scientists to pursue “innovation training” as a positive credential for tenure decisions. To leverage this federal investment, participants might report on their experiences, building a central, public resource of innovation materials that could be used or adapted by educators.

Tools for Science and Technology Are Vital to Leadership

The strength of the U.S. science and technology enterprise depends on the infrastructure available to do the very best fundamental work. This infrastructure includes instrumentation, computational resources, and facilities. Having the most advanced technology for doing science enables the researcher to address the most challenging problems and to and to uncover answers to questions most rapidly. Indeed, having the best infrastructure is an imperative to securing the nation’s continued leadership position in the world. Expansion of the research enterprise both domestically and internationally has dramatically expanded the amount of useful data and information available, giving rise to the need for access to large data bases by the research community.

In connection with advancing progress in the areas of special opportunity identified by the workshop participants, it is important to underscore the importance of the key role that advances in measurement drive the questions that researchers can ask and the rate at which science can advance. Advances in measurement underlie the progress that can be made in healthcare, energy, environment, complex systems and nanotechnology. Just as DNA microarray technology has enabled design of experiments unimagineable a decade ago, and mass spectrometry has enabled rapid protein characterization, new measurements (e.g. detection, sample preparation, visualization) are need to examine nanoparticle size distributions and morphology, intracellular structure and function, and structural and functional properties of new electronic materials and systems. Supporting the infrastructure for the advance of science is a vital federal role, and essential for enhancing the lead of the U.S. in moving breakthroughs in science to major technological applications.

Historically, the U.S. has maintained the world’s top research infrastructure, not only in terms of support for individual laboratories and research universities, but also through the development of infrastructure used by the national research community.

-28-

Researchers sometimes waste time, and forego promising ideas, because they are frustrated by attempts to negotiate access to limited facilities or resources of this kind.

One need is to expand centralized or shared infrastructure in response to the explosion of information and data in some areas of science. Such infrastructure leverages resources to benefit multiple disciplines and industries. One example is GenBank, an open-access sequence database of all publicly available nucleotide sequences and their protein translations. Produced by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, GenBank, representing sequences from more than 100,000 organisms, is a vital, primary resource for biologists, chemists, and other scientists worldwide.

Echoing this model, scientists today need support to generate a central, diverse public chemical library including all known characteristics of molecular substances in the library. This library of chemical structures would become a valuable U.S. resource available to researchers across fields. Similarly, researchers could accelerate drug discovery and improve health care with a new national phenotype collection, or a database that links patients’ specific genetic make-up (genotypes) to their symptoms or physical characteristics (phenotypes). Further investments in systems biology would enhance this effort.

In addition to such shared resources, scientists need national centers of infrastructure. To illustrate, such a center for image analysis would be valuable. By distributing high-resolution imaging and related molecular tools to specific centers nationwide, policymakers can leverage federal investment while providing critical access to scientists across disciplines and schools. Similarly, regional or university system-wide facilities, perhaps funded by a mix of private and public funds, could open up access to new technology in research hotspots across the country.

Tools for measurement and prediction in complex systems are needed to accelerate progress in the priority areas identified by the workshop. For example, scientists and engineers can envision new materials, from complex fluids to miniature semiconductor chips. These materials, in turn, lead to new DNA tests, alternative fuels, sensors, high-performance fabrics, and electronic and optical devices, among other products. To assess and predict materials systems require new measurement tools and predictive models. How does a nano-material move and behave inside the body? How does a chemical process break down plant cellulose, so that a non-food crop can become a fuel crop? How will a complex fluid work at different temperatures? How can a model of disease better predict actual disease?

America’s research university enterprise remains the best in the world. However, enhanced investments in other countries, notably China and India, add new competition to the U.S. research community. Lacking financial resources for professional technical support, universities struggle to find resources to efficiently operate and maintain sophisticated equipment. Developing and sustaining a world class research institution requires regular capital investment and substantial recurring commitment to maintenance and operation. The federal government must recognize the growing challenge in this

-29-

arena, as the infrastructure needed at universities to remain at the forefront grows in importance, cost and complexity.

Currently, virtually all capital needs of universities are provided by the states and/or by private philanthropy. The federal government provides very little capital to support the development of universities facilities. Considering the hefty university investment in this arena, the federal government must continue its policies of supporting the costs of maintaining and operating such facilities through the grants and contracts awarded for research. Further, favorable tax policies should be sustained to encourage philanthropic support for universities, including, for example, the recent opportunity to contribute resources from an individual IRA account free of any tax encumbrance to the donor. Tax deductability of gifts to universities is a competitive advantage for the U.S.

Another important federal commitment of importance is the commitment to supporting the best research through a competitive process involving merit review to assess which proposals are most deserving of support. The workshop affirms that merit review is essential to assuring the best infrastructure for research supported by the federal government. Merit review assures that the best research is supported and inspires confidence that the system is using precious resources as wisely as possible.

Companies in certain industry sectors may face common challenges either in international competition or in developing a fundamental knowledge base of importance to the entire industry. In such cases there should be opportunities to develop new ways of working together as was the case for the semiconductor industry some time ago with the development of Sematech. Such new ways of working together could prove useful to the pharmaceutical industry where the cost of bringing a new drug to market is hundreds of millions of dollars. With such costs, who will undertake the development of drugs for small populations with a treatable genetic disease?

Teamwork: Enhancing a Strong Partnership Between Academia and Industry

U.S. industry and academia have long had a strong and productive partnership to fuel the advance of science and technology. Historically strong programs like MIT’s Industrial Liaison Program and individual relationships between academic laboratories and industry laboratories have been important to both academia and industry. However, in recent times many research universities have been called upon by their communities to become the drivers of local economies through technology transfer programs and the spawning of new companies from the development of research in the university. The interest in working to develop new companies where new intellectual property is a critical issue in value creation, has resulted in new challenges. It is, of course, widely recognized that new science and technology based companies are critical to the leadership role America plays in innovation and wealth creation.

Today, leaders from both industry and academia note that the current relationship between U.S. corporations and academic institutions is not as strong as it could be and

-30-

that there are certain impediments to developing partnerships in research. Indeed, some industry leaders find it easier to work with research universities in other countries than in the U.S. Lengthy “negotiations” surrounding the ownership and use of intellectual property that might be developed in a research partnership between a university and a company frustrate academic researchers and industry leaders alike. An explicit need is for university technology licensing offices to recognize and better appreciate the business realities of successful commercialization. Universities and industry should focus primarily on moving innovative discoveries to commercial products, and less on near term financial gains to the university, while providing equitable sharing of rewards stemming from major commercial successes. Successful commercialization of breakthrough intellectual property should be the basic objective. The benefits from success in the arena go not only to the institutions involved, but U.S. competitiveness is enhanced.

More broadly, addressing ways of improving the relationship between academia and industry is important in stimulating stronger and more productive research partnerships. It is recommended that industry leaders and academic leaders convene to identify specific steps that can be taken to optimize relationships that will catalyze the pace of transfer of discovery to innovative products from fundamental research. Such steps might include altering university policies to have a standard framework for sponsored research that allows industry-sponsored research to begin once agreement has been reached on the proposed research program.

Many of the exciting opportunities in research are in areas where an interdisciplinary team can make more rapid progress. Providing support for such teams at universities that include industry participants provides an opportunity to better prepare students for future leadership roles in industry. Consciously working to build teamwork among contributors to the U.S. research enterprise will be rewarding in expanding the U.S. lead in innovation.

-31-

-Workshop Agenda-

Sunday, December 3, 2006

“Working” Dinner, 6:30-9:00pm

Introductions, Overview of Workshop: Dr. Mark S. Wrighton

Moderator: Mr. Thondiyil (Prem) Premkumar

Keynote Presentation: Research and Human Resource Needs of Industry, Dr. Joseph A. Miller

Monday, December 4, 2006

Session I: Nanotechnology, 8:00-9:30am

Moderator: Dr. Daniel G. Nocera

8:00-8:30am-Keynote Presentation: Materials and Nanotechnology, Dr. Yakov Kutsovsky 8:30-8:50am-Academic Response: Dr. Chad A. Mirkin 8:50-9:30am-Discussion moderated by Dr. Nocera

Session II: Materials, 10:00-11:30am

Moderator: Dr. Lynn Schneemeyer

10:00-10:30am-Keynote Presentation: Materials and the Aerospace Industry, Dr. Krishnan (K. K.) Sankaran 10:30-10:50am-Academic Response: Dr. Winston (Wole) Soboyejo 10:50-11:30am-Discussion moderated by Dr. Schneemeyer

“Working” Lunch: 12noon-1:30pm

Moderator: Dr. Susan B. Butts

Keynote Presentation: Fundamental Research and the Chemical Industry, Dr. Gary S. Calabrese

-32-

Special Presentation: Enhancing Competitiveness and Innovation, Dr. Arden Bement, Director, National Science Foundation

Session III: Imaging, 2:00-3:30pm

Moderator: Dr. Samuel L. Stanley

1:30-2:00pm-Keynote Presentation: Applications of Imaging Technologies in Diagnostic Medicine, Dr. William E. Clarke 2:00-2:20pm-Academic Response: Dr. Samuel I. Achilefu 2:10-3:00pm-Discussion moderated by Dr. Stanley

Session IV: Plant Science and Biotechnology, 3:30-5:00pm

Moderator: Dr. Mark S. Wrighton

3:30-4:00pm-Keynote Presentation: Biotechnology from the Perspective of an Emerging Company, Mr. Edward T. Shonsey 4:00-4:30pm-Keynote Presentation: Biotechnology from the Perspective of a Mature Company, Dr. Ganesh (Kish) Kishore 4:30-5:00pm-Discussion moderated by Dr. Wrighton

“Working” Dinner: 6:00-8:30pm

Moderator: Dr. Larry R. Faulkner

Keynote Presentation: Measurement, Instrumentation, and Applications, Dr. Darlene J. S. Solomon

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Session V: Pharmaceutical Development and Manufacturing, 8:00-9:45am

Moderator: Dr. Mark S. Wrighton

8:00-9:00am-Keynote Presentations: Developing and Manufacturing New Pharmaceuticals, Dr. John M. Leonard and Dr. Charles McWherter 9:00-9:45am-Discussion moderated by Dr. Wrighton

-33-

Session VI: Workforce and Infrastructure, 10:15-11:45am

Moderator: Dr. Craig A. Blue

10:15-11:15am-Keynote Presentations: University Programs and Infrastructure, Dr. Charles P. Casey and Dr. Matthew Tirrell 11:15-11:45am-Discussion moderated by Dr. Blue

“Working” Lunch-12:15-1:45pm

Moderator: Dr. Lynn Schneemeyer

Keynote Presentation: Fundamental Research and the Role of Professional Societies, Dr. Catherine (Katie) Hunt Special Presentation: Research in Chemistry Yields Significant Economic Return, Dr. xxx Anthony

Session VII: Summary and Conclusions, 2:00-4:00pm

Moderator: Dr. Mark S. Wrighton

Special Presentation: Intellectual Property Challenges, Dr. Susan Butts

Discussion moderated by Dr. Wrighton involving all workshop participants

-34-