Pathways for economic stimulus certainly aren’t in short supply these days. Neither is global demand for insatiable technological wow factor. That is why the field of nanotechnology holds much hype, mystery and promise. This buzz saturated field of research is drawing significant attention among investors, legislators, and even its fair share of mentions in pop culture. Now the field has even matured to the point where US nanotechnology policy is adapting to meet the forces of change.
From strictly a policy perspective, the US Presidential Council on Science and Technology conducted their review of several inter-agency programs today, including the biannual report of the ten year old National Nanotechnology Initiative founded under President Clinton. Since its founding in 2000, the NNI program has invested in nearly $12 Billion USD in basic nanotechnology research and has since been a subject of much praise and debate. The panel briefly presented the working group’s recommendation to address increased global competition, environment health and safety concerns, as well as establishing the need to quantitatively measure research and its macroeconomic impact.
While widely considered the leader in Nanotechnology innovation, the US is now trailing Asia and the European Union in government funding for Nanotechnology research. The US now ranks third in government spending and second in overall research investment. China now dominates nanotechnology patent applications and is currently the world leader.
Given recent toxicology studies, the panel is prioritizing additional investment towards regulatory, environmental, and public safety measures. Research funding also will provide resource parity in moving results from exclusively funding basic physical research to more robust applications like nanotechnology manufacturing.
All good things right? But that leads us to employment.
According to the working group, finding a qualified skilled workforce for placement in nanotech careers is a real problem. Ask your 10 year old niece (or your average high school graduate) if she would rather be a race car driver or a physical chemist and you get the picture.
In order to address this gap, the NNI working group presented a plan to retain foreign nanotechnology students and revise Visa policy. While, I am completely in favor of retaining as many qualified foreign students in US research institutions, it was disappointing to see that the well documented shortfalls of US science, math, and engineering educational policy weren’t mentioned by panelists. While the panel addressed the fact that 1/3 of all foreign students who completed post secondary education in the US return back to their home country, not much was said regarding cultivating a US citizenry that would be a valuable export for developing nations.
Both US students and foreign students could equally benefit from collaborating in US based research centers to solve problems contextualized by a globalizing work environment, accelerating technological change, energy demand, and resource scarcity. I dare say that in a 21st century economy, its imperative and may very well be about mere survival.
Failing to address science, math, engineering, and technology shortfalls in US education is a sure fire strategy for failure. Considering the NNI’s funding source of tax based revenue, certainly this can not be ignored as a valid criticism, albeit one that is rooted in a far greater systemic social problem.
Exciting times ahead. Considering the pain that so many people feel in the current economic climate, the NNI is a sage investment in the future. The US will either find itself rolling up its sleeves and using a time of crisis as an opportunity, or we will find a Nation content with business as usual, where we choose to ignore the possibility of an age as formative as the industrial revolution.
Meanwhile, the unemployment lines keep getting longer as so many people are searching for 20th century roles that may already be obsolete. We can’t mobilize fast enough.
